1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. When entering into a goods transaction contract with B around 2008 as a company manufacturing and selling the direct source of goods, the Plaintiff sold and supplied the goods handled by the Plaintiff to B, and the price was paid in cash within one month based on the last day of each month in which the goods were supplied.

B. On the same day, the Defendant signed a joint and several guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant guarantee agreement”) by signing and sealing on the joint and several guarantee agreement stating that “The Defendant shall faithfully perform its obligation as a joint and several surety for the continuous transaction of goods and all obligations arising in connection with the transaction of goods with the Plaintiff.”

C. On the other hand, on May 10, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder, the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder, the Plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million owned by the Defendant, in order to secure the obligation of the purchase of goods to the Plaintiff on May 10, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As of February 2015, the price for the goods unpaid by B is KRW 122,160,379, and the Defendant, a joint guarantor, is liable to pay KRW 72,160,379, and damages for delay, remaining after deducting KRW 50 million, which is secured by the instant right to collateral security, out of the price for the goods.

B. Even if the joint and several surety contract of this case was not determined in writing as stipulated in Article 6 of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety (hereinafter “Surety Protection Act”), considering the fact that the D company operated by B at the time of entering into the instant joint and several surety contract is merely an individual business operator who is not a corporate business operator, and that the spouse share the economic benefits of each other, barring any special circumstances, the Defendant is the spouse of B.