A. The co-defendant D of the Plaintiff, the Defendant C, and the first instance court operated the game room as a club business in Silsi E in 2007. On September 2007, the game room was closed, and the game machine was stored in the warehouse around that time. D sold 60 game machine regardless of the Plaintiff’s will and disposed of.

B. On September 6, 2007, D promised to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18.5 million out of the sales price of the said game machine in installments from September 6, 2007 to October 10, 2007 (hereinafter “instant payment agreement”), Defendant B, and C jointly and severally guaranteed the said monetary payment obligation of D.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts found by the Defendants’ liability, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable with D to pay 18,500,000 won to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

B. Determination 1 as to the Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant B’s assertion does not put his signature on the letter of payment in the sense of joint and several sureties, but merely puts his signature in the meaning of the observer.

Defendant B did not have a joint and several guarantee for the monetary payment obligation of Defendant D.

In addition, the instant payment agreement is a juristic act that distributes the disposal price of a game machine provided for a speculative business, so it is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Act, as it is a juristic act that violates good morals and other social order. Therefore, Defendant B’s joint and several liability is null and void.

B. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement No. 1 of the judgment, Defendant B is acknowledged to have recorded his address and name on the side of the entry “joint guarantor” at the bottom of the letter of payment in which the instant payment agreement was written. Defendant B is sufficient to recognize the fact of joint and several surety for the monetary payment obligation under the instant payment agreement, and Defendant B’s assertion contrary thereto is without merit.