2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The arbitral award made on March 3, 2015 by the said arbitral tribunal shall be revoked with respect to the case at issue.

The reason why this Court is used in this part is that, except for the dismissal of the corresponding part as follows, it is identical to the entry of "1. Basic Facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(a) 2,98,570,000 won in the second sentence of the first instance judgment shall be read as “2,98,570,000 won”; and

B. On February 4, 2016, the fourth and fourth instances of the first instance court's decision, "The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court No. 2015 or 2014943 (Evidence No. 3), "B", and "B, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court No. 2015 or 2014943 (Evidence No. 3), but the appeal was dismissed on February 4, 2016 (Evidence No. 16). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff appealed as to the above judgment, but on April 4, 2016, the appeal was dismissed (Evidence No. 17).

(c) The fourth and fourth written judgment of the court of first instance shall be "2014" as "2015".

(d)Nos. 1, 3, and 11 of the 4th sentence of the first instance court shall read “Evidence No. 1, 3, 11, 16, and 17 of the 12th sentence”.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The reasons why the court has used this part are as follows: "The arbitral award of this case was made in spite of the absence of an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to resolve the dispute by arbitration" in the fourth and twenty-oneth of the judgment of the court of first instance; and "the arbitral award of this case was made without agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to resolve the dispute by arbitration (the arbitral award of this case was made without the method provided in Article 8 (1) of the Arbitration Act)."

Since this part is the same as the corresponding part, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant provisions

The reason why this Court is used is that the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

C. Determination

The reasons why this Court is used for this part are as follows, and such reasons are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal, addition or deletion as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1) It is reasonable to see that the instant additional contract is binding (the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was concluded by deception, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it) in the first instance court’s first instance court’s sixth to eighteen (16) and eighteen (18). The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under Article 8(1) of the Arbitration Act cannot be accepted.

“On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant additional contract was concluded by deception. However, even if all evidence submitted or quoted by the Plaintiff including the aforementioned evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 59 through 61 were collected, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant or the literature file, etc. deceiving the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the letter of order cannot be accepted.

(B) The contract to establish a sales right and the contract to establish a sales transfer security between the Defendant and B, which is at issue by the Plaintiff, is finalized by the transferee of the entire business in B, and the unpaid principal, interest and interest on the Defendant, and

The overdue interest, etc. was concluded on the premise that it would be possible to terminate the contract where mutual agreement is reached or repaid through debt adjustment. According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 14 and 15, it is recognized that the above goodwill and the sales transfer contract was terminated at the request of B after the conclusion of the instant additional contract. Thus, it is difficult to view that at the time of entering into the instant additional contract, the Defendant has a duty to notify the Plaintiff of the above goodwill and sales transfer contract.

2) The following shall be added to the sixthth sentence following the first instance court ruling:

Article 3(2) and (4) of the above Additional Contract provides that “The Plaintiff was aware of the content of the instant prior contract at the time of entering into the instant Additional Contract, the evidence submitted or cited by the Plaintiff, such as the statement of evidence No. 12, is not sufficient to deem that the Defendant, etc. did not present the content of the instant prior contract to the Plaintiff.”

3) The following shall be added to the 8th sentence of the first instance court:

In light of the foregoing arbitral award and the Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2014943, and the legal principles of Supreme Court Decision 2011Da66252 Decided July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim is sought to revoke the instant arbitral award through the instant lawsuit. However, in light of the foregoing legal principles, the instant arbitral award and the Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2014943,

In accordance with the arbitral award of this case, where the arbitral award of this case is revoked, and accordingly the defendant files a civil suit against the plaintiff who is a joint guarantor with a general court seeking payment of an amount equivalent to KRW 800 million for the acquisition price under the contract for the acceptance of convertible bonds of this case, there is a strong doubt as to whether the plaintiff's joint and several liability can be limited to 60%,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hatry

Judges Shin Jae-ok

② According to the original subscription rate of convertible bonds: 4.5%, and maturity profit guarantee rate: 8% (in annual installments). However, the contract is changed to 2.0%, and maturity profit guarantee rate: 5.0%: 8.0%, according to subparagraph 2 of the principal redemption and interest payment rate, 3.5% per annum, which is the difference between guarantee return rate and surface interest rate, shall be converted to annual installments. However, the contract is changed to 2.0% per annum, which is the difference between guarantee return rate and surface interest rate. In addition, although the contract is changed to 2.0% per annum, which is the difference between guarantee return rate and surface interest rate, it shall be changed to 5% per annual installments.

④ From the investment balance (1,622,454,686 won in the initial contract of this case) under an investment contract of this case (the contract of this case, the amount remaining after deducting the amount of the refund (1,200,000,000 won) prior to the conversion of redemption from the total of 422,454,686 won (65,381,79 won) and the principal (65,381,79 won) recovered according to the arrears situation, shall be substituted with the payment price of convertible bonds underwritten under the same conditions as the original contract of convertible bonds as the original subscription under this contract of this case.

2) Even in the case of the so-called continuing guarantee that guarantees an uncertain obligation arising from a continuous transaction between an obligee and an obligor as well as the case of a general guarantee that guarantees a specific obligation, if an obligee’s exercise of right is not possible to pay it in good faith, it may be exceptionally permissible to limit the liability of a surety. However, to limit the liability under a guarantee agreement that has been established effectively in accordance with the general principles, such as the good faith principle, would pose a serious threat to the principle of private autonomy or legal stability, and thus, it should be extremely exceptionally acknowledged based on the good faith.