1. The appeal by the counterclaim defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the counterclaim Defendant.

The counterclaim defendant of the claim is the counterclaim defendant.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the supplement of judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The summary of the counterclaim Defendant’s assertion that the obligor of the instant loan obligation was changed to the counterclaim Defendant is merely a form, and the counterclaim Defendant only lent his name to C, and the counterclaim was well aware of this.

Therefore, the counterclaim Defendant, who is not the debtor in the substance of the instant loan obligation, does not have the duty to pay the indemnity to the counterclaim.

B. Determination 1) Where a third party obtains a loan from a financial institution and allows the financial institution to use his/her name, regardless of whether he/she is liable as a principal debtor with respect to the financial institution that is the creditor, as a matter of course, the joint and several sureties who performed joint and several sureties's liability as a principal debtor cannot be deemed liable for damages as a matter of course for the joint and several sureties who performed the joint and several sureties's liability, regardless of whether he/she is liable as a principal debtor with respect to the financial institution that is the creditor. It is acknowledged that the joint and several sureties bears the full liability as a principal debtor with respect to the joint and several sureties, only in cases where it seems reasonable to impose liability on the third party as a result of the third party's belief and performance of the guarantee obligation as a principal debtor, and the fact at the first instance court's first instance trial as well as evidence examined in the first instance court and evidence Nos. 8, No. 7 and No. 12, and the fact inquiry results in the first instance trial as well as witness evidence.

① On December 21, 2016, Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Gahap10340 decided December 21, 2016 against the counterclaim Plaintiff.