The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The gist of the first point is that there was an error of omission of judgment in the original judgment. However, as in the legal brief dated February 2, 1971, the plaintiff, the creditor, and the non-party corporation, the debtor, stated that the claim of 10 million won in this case between the plaintiff and the non-party corporation, the debtor, was incurred from the overdraft transaction before the same person, and as in the check book of the above company, the plaintiff was stated that it was the check book of the above company, the plaintiff terminated the overdraft contract with the above company, arranged it as a general loan, and settled the overdraft balance with the above company, but at the same time, the plaintiff paid the overdraft balance to the above company, and changed it into the loan claim of the above amount, it can be viewed that the overdraft balance, the overdraft debt of the old company, is extinguished and the new debt was incurred under the loan contract, so it cannot be said that there is no error of law in the judgment.

The gist of the second point is that the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles on the guarantee of the root. However, according to the evidence revealed by the court below, the transaction under the opposite-month contract between the plaintiff and the above Taeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. between the plaintiff and the above Taeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. shall pay 10 million won per each month to the plaintiff, and the above company shall pay 10 million won per loan to the plaintiff, and at the same time, the obligation for the opposite-month, which is the debt of the old company, was changed to the loan, was extinguished due to the novation. Thus, even if the defendant becomes the collateral guarantor of the above company at the time of the above opposite-party contract, even if the contract was not seen to have been terminated at the same time as the above basic contract was terminated, it shall be deemed that the above contract was terminated at the same time as the above contract was terminated. Thus, the court below's decision that the effect of the above

The gist of the third point is that the court below erred in the misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation after misunderstanding the plaintiff's assertion as to representation or representation or cooking evidence. However, considering the evidence relations selected by the court below, since the defendant, who was the representative director of the above company, was in the process of de facto resignation and flight, was aware of such facts on the part of the plaintiff, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion as to the conclusion of the contract of guarantee with the plaintiff as to the conclusion of the contract of guarantee with the defendant's seal as to the conclusion of the contract of guarantee with the non-party, and there is no evidence that the defendant, at the time of the guarantee contract, had the right of representation against the above non-party, etc., on the ground that there is no such error as the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment, since there is no evidence that

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices on the bench by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng