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. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2003, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to B as of July 27, 2005. In this case, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above principal and interest obligation of the Plaintiff.

B. Around July 2005, the Plaintiff and B agreed on July 27, 2007; and around July 2007, July 27, 2007, respectively, to extend the due date to July 27, 2009; the Defendant agreed on July 2005 on the extension of due date; however, the Defendant did not agree on the extension of due date until July 2007.

[The defendant's signature stated in the loan-related documents (No. 1) dated 25, 2007 is forged by a third party].

B The amount of the principal and interest of the loan owed to the Plaintiff as of January 24, 2013 is KRW 5,31,730,000, including the principal and interest of the loan, KRW 2,152,250, and interest.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant consented to the extension agreement on July 2007 and that the joint and several liability should be borne by the defendant. However, as recognized earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge this point, and the opposing facts can be acknowledged. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. 1) In addition, the Plaintiff is a joint and several surety guaranteed by the Defendant for the fixed debt, and the Plaintiff asserts that even if the Plaintiff had extended the due date for the guaranteed debt without the Defendant’s consent, it should be held liable for the said joint and several surety. 2) A joint and several surety who guaranteed the fixed debt for which the obligation is specified, regardless of whether the due date for the guaranteed debt has been extended without the Defendant’s consent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da14853, Jun. 14, 2002). However, where the due date for the guaranteed debt has been extended between the parties without their consent.