A. On October 21, 201, the Plaintiff, a stock company, engaging in the production and sale of bowling products, etc., lent KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant A at interest rate of 8.5% per annum and on October 20, 2012. Defendant B, C, and D guaranteed Defendant A’s above loan obligation against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2013.

B. The letter of guarantee (Evidence A No. 2) as the document on the instant guarantee does not contain any phrase “joint guarantee”, and only read “sureties”.

[Ground of Recognition] Defendant A, D: A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 1, Defendant B, and C: Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment to recommend confession due to the absence of the defendant)

2. Defendant D asserts that the instant guarantee is not a joint and several guarantee, but a joint guarantee. As such, Defendant D asserts that only KRW 10,000,000 is liable for the separate benefit of the joint guarantee (Article 439 of the Civil Act) and that the guarantor’s highest and search defense (Article 437 of the Civil Act).

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendants are jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 57 (2) of the Commercial Act.

3. Where there is a guarantor, if the principal obligation has been caused by a commercial activity, the principal obligor and the guarantor are jointly and severally liable for performance (Article 57 (2) of the Commercial Act); on the other hand, an act performed by the merchant on behalf of his/her business shall be deemed a commercial activity; and the act of the

(Article 47 of the Commercial Act). According to the above facts, the act of the Plaintiff, a merchant, lent KRW 30,000,00 to Defendant A is presumed to be an act for business purposes and becomes a commercial activity. The guarantor of Defendant D et al. guaranteed the principal obligation arising from such commercial activity. Thus, even if the guarantee is not a joint and several liability, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment under Article 57(2) of the Commercial Act

(See Supreme Court Decision 4291No407 delivered on August 27, 1959). In such a case, the guarantor has the right of defense against highest and search.