2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants, a joint and several surety of C and D, are obliged to pay the amount stated in the claims to the Plaintiff, as there is no dispute between the parties.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ joint and several surety obligation against the Plaintiff was reduced or exempted in accordance with the rehabilitation plan approval of the court for C and D as the principal obligor.

Notwithstanding Articles 250(2), 567, and 625(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 30-3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act provides that "where a creditor is the Fund, if the principal debt is reduced or exempted at the time approval for rehabilitation plan for a small and medium enterprise is obtained or immunity is granted after adjudication of bankruptcy, joint and several liability obligations shall also be reduced or exempted at the same rate if such principal debt is reduced or exempted; and Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act (Article 11844) provides that "the amended provisions of Article 30-3 shall apply from joint and several liability obligations that the principal debt is reduced or exempted after the first approval for rehabilitation plan and the declaration of bankruptcy is enforced after the first approval for rehabilitation plan and the declaration of bankruptcy for a small and medium enterprise is enforced

The legislative intent of the above law is that a representative director is jointly and severally liable for a debt owed to a large number of small and medium enterprises, and the relevant company which is a principal debtor is established for the purpose of the smooth financing of the company by guaranteeing the debt of the company which lacks security ability due to the excessive joint and several liability obligations owed by the representative director, considering the circumstances where it is difficult for the company to reorganize because of the company's excessive joint and several liability obligations even after the approval of the rehabilitation plan was issued by the court (see Article 1 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act).

The case is returned to this case.