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 facts of recognition and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the “financial bankrupt” under Section 2, Section 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the bankrupt debtor,” and the part of “former trade name FF Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” “if the trade name was changed to F Co., Ltd., but thereafter changed to E, the trade name was changed to E,” and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination

A. According to the records as to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the loan No. 1-1, the Defendant did not stand as a joint and several surety for the loan No. 1 at the time of a credit transaction agreement on February 16, 2007.

However, according to the overall purport of evidence No. 2-3, evidence No. 4-1, 2, and evidence No. 5, the defendant prepared a letter of commitment to repay only 50 million won which is part of the loan obligation, at the time of the extension of the due date from February 16, 2010 to October 31, 2010, and signed and sealed his name in the column of joint and several surety, which is the joint and several surety for which the maturity of the loan is extended from February 16, 2010. E held the board of directors on August 19, 2010, and decided to jointly and several surety for the defendant who was the representative director at the time of the meeting. On August 16, 2010, E requested the bankruptcy debtor to extend the due date for the loan obligation No. 1 to 4, and at the same time, the defendant signed and issued a letter of commitment to repay the loan obligation to the guarantor at the time of the first extension of the due date.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

(b)whether the surety obligation has been extinguished on the ground that the extension of due date agreement was not made;