1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On November 26, 2011, the Plaintiff issued the payment guarantee certificate. The Plaintiff is the same kind of character Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant character”).

(2) Around January 31, 2012, the Defendant entered into an advance payment guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff, the secured creditor, the guaranteed creditor, the guaranteed creditor, the guaranteed amount of KRW 198,00,000,000, with the guarantee period from January 31, 2012 to November 30, 2012, under which the Defendant entered into an advance payment guarantee agreement with the Defendant to purchase the 2,17,8,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant payment guarantee agreement”). The instant payment guarantee agreement was issued from the Defendant to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2012. The key contents related to the instant payment guarantee agreement are as follows:

The place where the guaranteed obligation is performed: The time when the guaranteed obligation is performed by the branch of the Defendant Stabilizing Corporation: (1) The same domains are subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction by a clearing house, and (2) The performance of the guaranteed obligation may be requested even before the expiration of the guaranteed obligation, only when

The period for claiming the discharge of guaranteed liabilities: The guaranteed liabilities shall be extinguished when the plaintiff does not request the discharge of guaranteed liabilities within two months after the date of guarantee.

B. 1) The Plaintiff asked the Industrial Bank of Korea and the Gandong branch office of the Defendant sent the instant payment guarantee letter by facsimile to the Plaintiff on March 7, 2012, when the Gandong character, which traded electronic sales bonds with the Industrial Bank of Korea, was unable to settle the accounts on March 7, 2012. On March 13, 2012, the Defendant’s Yeonsudong branch office asked the Plaintiff on whether the instant payment guarantee letter was able to receive the deposit in accordance with the instant payment guarantee letter on the grounds that the Eastdong character had defaulted at the Defendant’s trainingdong branch office.