1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. When entering into a goods transaction contract with B around 2008 as a company manufacturing and selling the direct source of goods, the Plaintiff sold and supplied the goods handled by the Plaintiff to B, and the price was paid in cash within one month based on the last day of each month in which the goods were supplied.

B. On the same day, the Defendant signed a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”) by signing and sealing on a joint and several guarantee agreement stating that “B shall faithfully perform its obligation as a joint and several surety for the continuous transaction of goods and all obligations arising in relation thereto.”

C. On the other hand, on May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a collateral security right holder, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant collateral security right”) with respect to the registration of creation of a collateral security holder, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s maximum debt amount of KRW 108 Dong 1605, Nam-si, Yangyang-si, the Defendant owned on May 10, 20

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As of February 2015, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is from KRW 122,160,379 to KRW 122,160,379. The Defendant, a joint guarantor, is liable to pay the remainder of KRW 72,160,379, after deducting KRW 50,000,000 from the price of the goods covered by the instant collective security.

B. According to Article 6 of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys, the Defendant’s main point of argument (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”), in the case of collateral guarantee, the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt should be specified in writing, but the guarantee contract of this case was null and void since the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt was not specified in the instant guarantee contract

3. Determination

A. Whether Article 6(1) and (2) of the Surety Protection Act is applied or not is a creditor.