The defendant.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As seen earlier, as theO’s judgment on the cause of claim’s liability for damages or indemnity liability against the Plaintiff, theO acquired the status of purchaser pursuant to the instant sales contract from D was established and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant three rooms to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, as the Plaintiff subrogated for the secured debt of KRW 752,00,000 and cancelled the right to collateral, theO is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 752,00,000 with the amount of indemnity arising from the nonperformance of obligation or subrogation, barring special circumstances.

According to whether the defendant's joint and several liability D arises, Gap evidence No. 1 (the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, since the part of the defendant's signature and seal was not disputed that the defendant's signature and seal was the defendant) and the purport of the whole pleading, it is reasonable to view that the defendant bears the guarantee obligation as stated in the main text of the contract as long as he puts his signature and seal on the part of the defendant's guarantor column of the contract in this case to "B and M jointly bear the obligation to the plaintiff as to all the obligations to the plaintiff under this contract (including all the obligations such as payment obligations under this contract, substitute payment obligations, damage compensation obligations, and security obligations)."

Therefore, the defendant is a joint and several surety of D and is jointly and severally liable for the buyer's debt according to the sales contract of this case.

As to this, the defendant at the time of the above sales contract.