1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment equivalent to that of paragraph (2) with respect to the assertion added by this court. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as is

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff, a joint and several surety of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff in the lawsuit for loan claim filed by C against the Plaintiff, which constitutes “when the guarantor, without any negligence, is given a decision to pay to the obligee” under Article 442(1)1 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendant acquired the prior right of reimbursement under the said judgment against the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Article 442(1)1 of the Civil Act provides that a person who has become surety upon the request of the principal obligor may exercise the right to reimbursement in advance against the principal obligor when he/she was tried to repay to the obligee without any negligence. 2) According to the purport of the evidence No. 14 and the whole pleadings, C loaned to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 21,722,00,000 from May 2, 2006 to December 21, 2007, under the premise that C loaned to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 21,722,00,000 from November 15, 2007 to December 21, 2007, where the extinctive prescription of the above money has not been completed, and the Plaintiff did not assert the above facts against C and the damages for delay, which became final and conclusive.

According to the above facts, C’s lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff is not seeking the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is a guarantor, but for the Plaintiff’s loan.