The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, since the plaintiff did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit a separate grounds for appeal within the prescribed period.

(2) Next, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendants' grounds for appeal against the defendants' appeal are examined as follows: the defendants concluded a contract for the guarantee of identity to the plaintiff on October 21, 1961 for the non-party Cho Young-young, which was enforced from January 1, 1962, but it cannot be viewed that the validity of the contract for the guarantee of identity is extinguished as a matter of course pursuant to the provisions of Article 96 of the Budget and Accounts Act, which was enforced from January 1, 1962, and Article 96 of the Budget and Accounts Act was put up for a financial guarantee when the officer is appointed (the above early early early early early is appointed as an expenditure officer as February 21, 1963). The purport of the above Article 96 of the Budget and Accounts Act is to be deemed to be to be to be responsible for the guarantee liability of the financial guarantee person only, and therefore, even if the above general guarantee contract was enforced before that time, such theory cannot be accepted, and it did not be considered to be unfair after the entry into the Ministry of commerce and airspace.

The court below did not have any misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the financial guarantee prescribed by the Budget and Accounts Act and the general guarantor.

Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. And the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. This decision is consistent with the opinions of the participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall transfer the case to the Han Sung-won and Yang Sung-won