1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant jointly and severally with Co-Defendant C of the first instance judgment amounting to KRW 3,329,693 and the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C on August 24, 2005, 10,000 won from the Dongdong Saemaeul Community Fund (hereinafter “the instant credit cooperative”) guaranteed the instant loan obligation by setting the standard rate of 9.5% per annum, the overdue interest rate of 20% per annum, the additional interest rate of 4.5% per annum, the due date of repayment of 4.5% per annum, and the Defendant D (hereinafter “D”) on September 17, 2009 (hereinafter “instant loan”) and the Plaintiff and the joint Defendant D (hereinafter “D”).

B. On November 5, 2009, the Plaintiff repaid all of KRW 9,989,080 in the balance of the instant loan remaining as a guarantor to the instant credit cooperative.

C. The Defendant is C and D’s children, the primary debtor of the instant loan, as C and D’s guarantor.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, testimony of witness E, each order to submit financial transaction information to the East and East Saemaul Depository of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. The defendant's prior defense on the merits is D that the other party to the claim for reimbursement of this case guarantees C and its obligation, which are the principal debtor to the obligation of this case, and the defendant claims that there is no standing to sue since it did not guarantee the obligation of loans of this case. However, in a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing to sue has been asserted by the person who asserts himself/herself as the right to demand performance, and thus, the party's standing to sue has been in place in accordance with the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff and the defendant are not the actual right to demand performance or the duty to perform. Thus, the defendant's prior defense on the merits

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties, the Defendant, and D provided a joint guarantee for the instant loan obligations. Since the Plaintiff paid all of the balance of the instant loan to the Plaintiff in excess of its share of the instant credit cooperative, the Defendant shall be deemed the Plaintiff’s reimbursement.