The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the second and third agreements of this case were agreements on the transfer and acquisition of land and business rights, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the said agreements are agreements on the same business as or similar agreements, and that the conclusion of loans or sales contracts cannot be deemed as conditions suspending the establishment of the payment obligations of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of facts acknowledged in the relevant civil judgment, the legal nature of each of the agreements of this case, and the interpretation of deputy officers of legal acts.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that Defendant B’s guarantee liability continues to exist in relation to the third agreement, on the following grounds: (a) the principal obligation did not lose its substantial identity despite the amendment to the terms and conditions of the instant third agreement.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violating the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.