1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

On November 28, 1995, the ELD Card Co., Ltd. entered into an exchange transaction agreement with Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial by setting the transaction period of November 26, 1997 as 4,50,000 won, interest rate of 20% per annum, and damages for delay rate of 24% per annum (hereinafter “instant exchange loan agreement”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loans to ELD Card Co., Ltd. on the same day.

The loan balance (principal) of B based on the exchange loan agreement of this case is KRW 3,090,912 as of March 31, 2005, while El Card Co., Ltd transferred the above loan claim to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2005.

On June 16, 2005, the Plaintiff sent to B a content-certified mail to the effect that it notifies the assignment of the above credit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and the above content-certified mail reached B around that time.

【The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established since there is no dispute that the stamp image next to the defendant’s name is based on the seal of the defendant. The defendant defense that this document was forged by the co-defendant C of the first instance trial. However, the testimony of the party witness B is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it) and the purport of the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3-2-3 in the assignment of claims, the assignment of claims to the defendant who is the principal debtor and the joint guarantor shall also have the effect on the defendant who is the joint and several surety (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da1100, Apr. 13, 1976). Thus, the defendant is a joint and several surety and the defendant is liable to pay the above loan claim amount of KRW 3,090,912 and delay damages to the plaintiff who acquired the above loan claim, unless there is any special circumstance.

The defendant's defense of the extinction of prescription is a defense that the plaintiff's joint and several surety claim against the defendant was extinguished as the plaintiff's loan claim against B has expired by prescription.

In this case.