1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be changed into “20,000,000 won” of the second two parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance, and each of the “the following seals” in paragraphs 10 and 17 of the third parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be used as “the plaintiff seeks after the next day.” The following seals are to be used as “the plaintiff seeks after the next day.” In addition to the allegations added by the defendant C in this court and the judgment thereon, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant C’s assertion of additional determination did not have prepared the instant performance certificate (No. 1-1) with the Plaintiff on October 15, 2014, and did not have expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to jointly and severally guarantee the obligation of Defendant C. The instant performance certificate was prepared to coordinate interests between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the seal of Defendant C was affixed arbitrarily. As such, the joint and several guarantee contract between Defendant C and the Plaintiff among the instant performance certificate is null and void.

Judgment

On October 15, 2014, each of the evidence evidence No. 1-1 (Performance Certificate) and No. 3 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) is written in accordance with the fact that Defendant C guaranteed Defendant C’s debt.

First, there is no dispute between the parties that the seal affixed on the column for joint and several sureties of the instant performance certificate is based on the seal of Defendant C, and the authenticity is presumed to have been established. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the joint and several sureties part of the instant performance certificate was forged against the intent of Defendant C.

In addition, according to the statement No. 1-3, it can be acknowledged that Defendant C’s certificate of personal seal impression as of October 14, 2014 attached to the instant performance certificate was issued directly by Defendant C.

Therefore, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant C can fully recognize the fact that the defendant C has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the defendant C, so this part of the defendant C's argument disputing this is not acceptable.

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.