The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Based on evidence, the court below found the following facts: (a) D lent KRW 50 million to C in its name and jointly and severally guaranteed by the Plaintiff; (b) E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and received the judgment of this case ordering payment of KRW 50 million and delay damages; (c) thereafter, C and the Plaintiff changed the entire debt amount of KRW 150 million including the above loan debt (which is the principal debt of the judgment of this case) between D and D; and (d) the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the above changed debt; (e) accordingly, C and the Plaintiff jointly issued to E a promissorysory note amounting to KRW 150 million in face value; and (v) establishing the instant collateral to related relatives of D; and (v) D received dividends in total in name of KRW 198,304,749 in terms of real estate auction based on the instant collateral; and

In addition, the court below held that the principal debt of the judgment of this case is not separate from the secured debt of this case (the debt of 150 million won as above) and includes it. (1) Since the guarantee contract of 150 million won between the plaintiff and D with respect to the secured debt of this case is a novation contract with respect to the judgment of this case, that is, the plaintiff's existing guarantee debt of this case, under the judgment of this case, the obligation of this case was extinguished before the assignment of the claim, and (2) even if the guarantee contract of 150 million won including the judgment of this case does not fall under a concurrent contract, even if the guarantee contract of 150 million won including the judgment of this case is not an open contract, the plaintiff's guarantee debt of 150 million won including the judgment of this case is extinguished by the creditor's debt of this case with payment received in full at D auction. Thus, the compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall be enforced.