The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the progress of the instant case and Article 250(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the alteration of rights arising from the authorization of the rehabilitation plan for the rehabilitation debtor does not, in principle, affect the right of the creditor to the guarantor of the rehabilitation debtor.

In the Korea Technology Finance Corporation Act and the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, if the creditor is the Korea Technology Finance Corporation or the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the creditor, at the time when the rehabilitation plan approval plan for the rehabilitation plan is obtained, provision that the joint and several liability shall be reduced

(Article 37-3 of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation Act and Article 30-3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act. However, unlike Article 37-3 of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation Act and Article 30-3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act, the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation applied to the Plaintiff does not have any provision that reduces the obligation of the guarantor at the same rate as that of reduction or exemption of the principal obligation

The judgment of the court of first instance judged that the defendant's joint and several liability obligations of the defendant who is the representative director B when entering into a credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff which is a regional credit guarantee foundation B in order to obtain a loan from a financial company is also mitigated or exempted at the same rate according to the approval of the rehabilitation plan of B in this case.

Article 37-3 of the Korea Technology Finance Corporation Act or Article 30-3 of the Credit Guarantee Fund Act should be reflected in the legislative process and purport of the Act and the exception to Article 250 (2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act should be recognized.

However, the judgment of the court below is subject to the alteration of rights according to the authorization of the rehabilitation plan pursuant to Article 250(2)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.