1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the following Paragraph 2 is added between two pages 20 and three pages 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance. 2. The part concerning defendant A's argument is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part concerning defendant A's argument as stated in the following Paragraph 3. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the other hand, the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from March 1, 2012 for the performance of joint and several obligations and the agreed amount against the Defendants. However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant A merely guaranteed Defendant B’s obligations and jointly guaranteed Defendant B’s obligations as seen earlier. She also stated that Defendant B’s obligation is due and due to the assertion that the agreed amount due February 28, 2012 is due and due, Defendant B has been proved as evidence No. 2. However, Defendant B is disputing the establishment of the authenticity as the site for Defendant B’s evidence until the trial. Since there is no evidence to support that Defendant B’s seal affixed on the name of Defendant B was due to Defendant B, it cannot be used as evidence to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to deem that the maturity between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was due and payable on February 28, 2012. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the agreed amount due was extended by the mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Plaintiff pursuant to subparagraph 3.

3. The part of the containered Defendant A sold the forest land and buildings owned by the Plaintiff to D in substance. The Plaintiff’s provisional attachment on the forest land was defective in order to preserve the agreed amount’s claim, the Plaintiff’s claim for the above agreed amount was reduced to KRW 100 million between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. D first paid the Defendant A the down payment of KRW 20 million out of the down payment amount of KRW 120 million under the above sales contract, and the remainder of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 to be in charge of the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment cancellation document.