1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant (appointed parties) and the appointed parties shall be jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the second page of the judgment of the first instance, the following matters shall be added to the 19th sentence:

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 12, the selected C entered into a contract to establish a right to collateral on June 7, 2006 with respect to apartment owned by it, and determined the mortgagee as the plaintiff not D. On the same day, the plaintiff issued the right to share of the face value of KRW 94 million (the amount calculated by deducting the face value of KRW 6 million from the face value of the G Bank's bank's own bank's own account at the branch office located in the private household of G Bank on the same day. In light of the above facts of recognition, the creditor of the loan amount of KRW 10 million on June 1, 2006 can be sufficiently recognized as the plaintiff. In light of the above facts of recognition, the "dissatised" was the "dissatised" and the voluntary auction of the above apartment was applied for a voluntary auction by the plaintiff, etc., and in the process, there was no objection to the existence of the claim of this case."

On the third anniversary of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added to the following:

Therefore, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim for the loan of this case is ten years stipulated in Article 162 (1) of the Civil Code, and the lawsuit of this case is clearly recorded as of June 1, 2008 that the ten years have not passed since June 1, 2008, which was the due date for the loan of this case, was filed on May 23, 2016, and therefore the defendant (appointed party)'s claim for the expiration of extinctive prescription is without merit. The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, " is in the following."

Then, the defendant (appointed party) who is the principal debtor and the appointed parties who are joint and several sureties shall jointly and severally serve as the plaintiff KRW 100 million and its amount from March 1, 2008 (A.).