(a) the Defendant (Appointed Party) KRW 98,402,224;

B. The Defendant (Appointed) is jointly and severally liable to pay the said money.

A. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the fact-finding results in this court's fact-finding, the plaintiff and the defendant (appointed party, the defendant below) ordered construction work in the plaintiff's name on December 7, 2004 by taking office as the plaintiff He and ordered construction work in the plaintiff's name. In a case where damages are incurred in the process, Gap signed an agreement with the defendant Eul to assume responsibility. The defendant Eul guaranteed joint and several liability for the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul ordered construction work in the plaintiff's name from March 27, 2008 to December 8, 2008 and incurred damages of KRW 55,402,24 to the plaintiff from March 27, 2008 to December 2008. Further, the defendant Eul paid KRW 4,3 million to I around December 2012, and caused damages to the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff, Gap may be recognized as the plaintiff's heir, heir, and heir Eul who died.

B. According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages in accordance with the above agreement, and as a joint and several liability obligations of Party B, the heir of Party B, D, E, F, and G, who jointly and severally guaranteed the above liability for damages, inherited the joint and several liability of Party B according to the inherited portion. Thus, Defendant B and the joint and several liability of Party B are jointly and severally liable for damages equivalent to the inherited portion (Appointed C: 3/13, Selection D, E, F, and G: 2/13).

2. The parties to the lawsuit regarding the assertion of the litigant except the defendant B are the fidelity guarantor of the defendant B, and the contract for the fidelity guarantee is terminated after two years of the guarantee period of the defendant B, and thus, they are not responsible therefor. However, the written agreement of the No. 1 of the certificate of evidence No. 1 of this case cannot be seen as a contract for the fidelity guarantee even if it is stated as the joint guarantor, and it cannot be seen as a contract for

3. If so, Defendant B’s damages amounting to KRW 98,402,224, and Defendant B’s joint and several payment amount.