1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall not exceed 240,000,000 won to the plaintiff. 156.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion acknowledged the Defendant’s obligation to repay the principal and interest of the Defendant’s credit loan under the name of the Defendant, and asserts that in this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to guarantee the collateral of the loans under the name of the

First, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to change the guarantor of the instant collateral guarantee, and there was no intention to terminate the instant collateral guarantee, and the Defendant still bears the responsibility to guarantee the instant loan obligations of the non-party company.

Second, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff the intention to terminate the instant probation guarantee.

Even if the defendant held office as representative director of the non-party company, it does not necessarily guarantee the debt of the loan of this case, but not only has the status of representative director of the non-party company, but also guarantees the debt of the loan of this case of the non-party company in the status of shareholder of the non-party company who holds a significant portion of the shares of the non-party company. Thus, the defendant cannot claim the termination of the collateral guarantee due

3. Judgment by issue

A. According to the evidence Nos. 6 and 7’s existence or absence of the declaration of termination, the Defendant may recognize the fact that May 23, 2016 expressed to the Plaintiff the intention of termination of the instant probation guarantee. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s dispute over this part is without merit.

B. It is unreasonable for a joint guarantor to maintain the status of a guarantor in a case where a person who has become a joint guarantor for a company's obligation due to continuous transactions between the company and the bank inevitably retires from the company and loses his status as an officer after he retires from the company. Thus, it is obvious that the situation at the time of the establishment of a joint and several surety contract is significantly significant.