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 reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion added by the defendant in this court, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff participated in the rehabilitation procedure of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), which is the primary debtor, and received debt repayment by means of debt-equity swap.

Since the principal obligation became extinct, the guaranteed obligation of the defendant was extinguished by the subsidiary nature.

B. Where it is prescribed in the rehabilitation plan for the rehabilitation debtor, who is the principal debtor, to convert the amount of debt into a debt instead of repaying all or part of the rehabilitation claim or rehabilitation security right, the surety obligation of the debtor of the rehabilitation shall be deemed to have been repaid the amount of debt equivalent to the appraised amount within the limit of the amount of the rehabilitation claim, etc. to be substituted for repayment of the new shares acquired by the rehabilitation creditor

In this case, when assessing the value of a debt-to-equity swap in order to determine the scope of the guarantor's guaranteed obligation, the party asserting that the debtor's debt-to-equity swap has been extinguished by the debt-to-equity swap.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da85830 Decided March 25, 2010). Comprehensively taking account of the health care of the Plaintiff’s respective descriptions and arguments as to the instant case, the part of KRW 53,100,000 among the Plaintiff’s claims against C was converted into investment in C’s rehabilitation procedure (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2014 Ma10059), and the effect of issuance of new shares by a conversion into investment was incurred on February 4, 2015, which was the day following the date when the rehabilitation plan was authorized, and the fact that the issuance of new shares by a conversion into investment was substituted for payment at that time. However, at the time of February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff as of February 4, 2015.