프랑스의 독립적 보증의 수반성에 관한 연구

Both suretyship and independent guarantee are considered to be a part of the security: however, suretyship is viewed as an accessory to a guaranteed obligation, while an independent guarantee is not. It is questionable whether an independent guarantee can maintain the accompanying aspect of security, which prohibits divorcing security from the committed promise. Even though French Civil Code Section 2321(4) forbids the independent guarantee from having an accompanying character, there are still disputes over this, particularly with regard to the universal transfer of assured obligation. Two factors, such as the purpose of independent guarantee was chosen over suretyship and the function of independent guarantee, should be considered while analyzing the accompanying characteristics of independent guarantee. The intention of the parties, which can continue to exist even after being separated from the assured obligation, is what matters most. The accompanying nature of independent guarantee is constrained in this regard. When the parties' intentions are unclear, the transmission of a guaranteed obligation differ from that of an independent suarantee. There is not much discussion in South Korea about the independent guarantee's accompanying character. The in-depth discussion in France will help South Korea to resolve this legal issue.