Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

(1) On July 21, 1997, when a school juristic person D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), Co., Ltd. entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan agreement”) with the former Co., Ltd. on November 1, 2001, including both the following changes, with the due date of payment 2.3% per annum of the applicable interest rate, 1,194,00,000, and the Defendant, the representative of D and E, was jointly and severally liable for the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff on July 21, 2027.

(2) D entered into the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff to build a new building, and E was a contractor, and it is possible for the Plaintiff to become a debtor together with the contractor.

E also became a joint principal debt holder as above.

(3) On September 9, 197, D and E applied for a change in the terms and conditions of loans to the Plaintiff as KRW 2,184,00,000 with respect to the instant loan agreement. The Plaintiff approved the change and increased the loans under the instant loan agreement.

On the same day, the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff the above increased loan obligation.

(4) Meanwhile, in order to secure the obligation under the loan agreement of this case, D created a collateral on the Plaintiff’s real estate owned by D and E with the debtor. The Minister of Education, around October 14, 1998, stated that “The establishment of a collateral security right based on the loan agreement of this case was permitted to secure D’s obligation, and it was also included in E in the debtor of the right to the lower-class party, and thus, it would result in providing the educational foundation’s profit-making property as collateral for E’s obligation, which is irrelevant to the loan agreement of this case, to be excluded from the debtor.”