2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. The above defendant alleged to the effect that "A was the actual operator of A, and the above defendant, as a nominal representative director, signed the column of joint and several sureties formally without the intention of genuine joint and several sureties, and the plaintiff was well aware of this fact, so the contract of this case is null and void as a joint and several sureties." However, it is insufficient to recognize each description of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) by itself, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The above defendant alleged to the effect that "the joint and several surety contract in this case was revoked on the ground of fraud because it falls under the C's deception," but it is not sufficient to recognize this only by the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. The above defendant asserts to the effect that "the time when the installment financing agreement of this case was terminated is already dismissed from the representative director, and this constitutes a special reason for recognizing the right to terminate the contract of this case, and thus, the contract of this case is terminated."

However, even if the above defendant's dismissal from the representative director is a ground for the right to terminate due to change of circumstances, the installment financing agreement of this case has already been terminated and the defendants have already been terminated.