1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant, who jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay construction waste disposal proceeds under the instant promise, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed damages calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from January 25, 2017 to the date of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, as the Plaintiff seeks, as to the unpaid amount of KRW 46,803,813 pursuant to the instant promise, and the payment delay damages calculated by the rate of 10% per annum from January 25, 2

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. As to the assertion that the letter of commitment of this case is null and void, the defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion that the letter of commitment of this case was signed and sealed only by the defendant, not by the corporate seal or the employee seal of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the letter of commitment of this case is null and void. 2) The representative director's assertion that the letter of commitment of this case is null and void because it is not necessarily required to affix the corporate seal or the employee seal to the effect of a juristic act on behalf of a juristic person. Thus, the above letter of commitment of this case cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the representative director's seal is affixed to the representative director's seal. Rather, in light of the process of preparing the letter of commitment of this case, language, and the defendant's status at the time, it is recognized that the defendant prepared the letter

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion regarding the statute of limitations defense was incurred prior to 2012 in the construction waste disposal price liability that the primary debtor E had borne against the Plaintiff.