1. Defendants A and D shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000,000, and they shall be fully paid to the Plaintiff from October 17, 2014.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff extended the above loan period to Defendant A on March 7, 2012 by 11.02% per annum, 20.23% per annum, 20.23% per annum, and the loan period from March 7, 2012 to March 7, 2013, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D’s joint and several liability for the above loan amount to the Plaintiff on the same day, and Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant C bears their responsibility within the limit of 32,500,000 won. Since then, the Plaintiff extended the above loan period to Defendant A on March 7, 2015, Defendant A paid interest on the loan amount to Defendant A until October 16, 2014, and Defendant A paid interest after delay.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, Defendant A, C, and D, as the principal debtor, is jointly and severally liable as joint and several surety, but Defendant B and Defendant C are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 25,00,000,000 of the principal borrowed to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 32,50,000,00, and the damages for delay calculated by the agreed interest rate of KRW 20.23% from October 17, 2014, which is the day following the date of the final payment of the above loan obligation, to the day of full payment.

As to this, Defendant D argued to the effect that the Plaintiff had extended the period of loan to Defendant A without Defendant D’s consent or consent, which is a joint and several surety, and thus, Defendant D is not liable as a joint and several surety or the scope of liability should be limited. However, Defendant D’s above assertion is without merit, regardless of whether the joint and several surety guaranteed for the fixed debt whose obligation is specified has extended the period of fulfillment of the guaranteed obligation without his/her consent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da49374, Sept. 24, 2002).

Each legal principle cited by Defendant D as the ground for the exemption or limitation of his joint and several liability can be applied to the case of continuous guarantee.