A Case Where the Debtor Had No Name Listed and the Signer Claimed to Be “Just a Guarantor” – But Still Ended Up Liable
Imagine this: A promissory note with no creditor listed. There is a sign of a person, but the signer claims, “I was not a borrower. I was just a guarantor—I never used the money.” The loan itself? Nearly seven years old.
Yet this case ended with a court ordering the defendant, the person who signed the promissory note, to repay the full loan amount.
Here’s what this case reveals:
Table of Contents
Case Overview
In August 2016, our client received a promissory note signed by the defendant and transferred money to her account.
However, as time passed, the defendant began to claim:
“My husband is the one who actually used the money. I just lent my name.”
She also argued that she was no longer obligated to repay the loan, saying:
“More than five years have passed since the loan was made.”
To make matters more complicated, the defendant was a lawyer; someone with the legal knowledge to avoid taking actions that might work against her. After taking on the case, SLG carefully reconstructed the events and developed a strategy to refute each of the defendant’s claims point by point.
Let’s take a look at how SLG responded to the defendant’s arguments.
“The Promissory Note Lacks Proper Identification of Creditor and Debtor”
The promissory note used for the transaction between the two parties was missing critical information: the creditor’s name was not listed, and the signature field did not specify that the defendant was the “borrower.”
The defendant focused heavily on these points, arguing: “How can this document serve as suitable evidence when the creditor’s name isn’t even on it?” and “This isn’t money I borrowed myself. I only acted as a guarantor and briefly lent my account. There is no evidence in this document that I am a borrower.”
How did SLG counter this?
We pointed out the absurdity of the defendant receiving 1 billion KRW into her personal account—just because she had signed something titled “promissory note”—without even verifying who the sender was.
Moreover, we uncovered phone recordings where, when pressed to repay the money, the defendant acknowledged, “Yes, I borrowed it,” effectively admitting her debt.
We also emphasized the fact that she is a lawyer—someone who understands the legal structure and effects of documents better than anyone—and that her act of signing the note clearly signaled her assumption of liability.
Quick Legal Insight: What does “knowing the legal consequences” mean in civil litigation?
In criminal cases, “I didn’t know” isn’t a valid excuse – as we’ve covered in several of our other success case articles.
Cases where claiming ignorance actually backfired → https://seoullawgroup.com/accidentally-bringing-cannabis-korea/
SLG: Clarifying the True Intent and Debt Structure
However, in civil cases, the true intent of both parties is crucial. Since intent exists in one’s mind, finding visible evidence is essential.
But since intent exists only in one’s mind, it must be supported by tangible, visible evidence.
At first, the defendant insisted, “I wasn’t the one who borrowed the money. I was merely providing a guarantee.”
But examining the actual circumstances revealed that the account receiving the money was in the defendant’s name, the defendant was the representative of the company that used the funds, and most importantly, the defendant personally signed the promissory note.
Based on all these facts, SLG explained to the court that ‘while the husband may have been the actual user of the money, the person legally responsible for repayment is the defendant.”
We further noted that, as a lawyer, the defendant would have clearly understood the legal implications of her own actions—meaning she could not avoid liability by simply claiming she had “only lent her name.” We also argued that—even if she was not the actual borrower—since the 1 billion KRW loan remained unpaid, she would still be legally obligated to repay the amount as a guarantor. This made it impossible for her to escape responsibility.
SLG’s Rebuttal to the Statute of Limitations Defense
The defendant argued, “More than five years have passed since the loan, so I’m no longer obligated to repay it.” Our client had lent the money in 2016 and first approached SLG in 2023.
Let’s quickly review the statute of limitations for civil and commercial claims: Civil claims expire after 10 years, while commercial claims expire after 5 years. Commercial claims refer to those arising from commercial transactions, while civil claims encompass all the others.
However, if certain actions are taken during the period, the statute of limitations can be interrupted—and once interrupted, the clock resets. In this case, the interruption occurred through notice to the debtor and the subsequent application for a payment order within 6 months.
SLG presented evidence that this transaction could be interpreted as a civil matter. But considering the possibility that this argument might not be accepted, we also proved that the statute of limitations had been interrupted by examining the timing of phone calls demanding payment and the application for a payment order.
As you can see, SLG developed a contingency plan in case the court did not accept our primary arguments. (These are known as “alternative (선택적)” or “secondary (예비적)” arguments in legal terms.)
Conclusion
The Result: The court accepted SLG’s arguments, confirmed the defendant as the primary debtor and our client as the creditor, and ordered payment of the full 1 billion won.
The promissory note lacked the creditor’s name, the defendant claimed her husband was the actual user of the funds, and she relied on the statute of limitations as her primary defense. The defendant raised multiple legal arguments in an attempt to deny liability.
Yet the court sided with SLG, accepting our analysis and rebuttals, and fully granted the plaintiff’s claim.
Still waiting to recover funds that were never repaid? Before concluding it’s too late, it may be worth taking a second look.