1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The assertion B, on the ground that it is the representative (in-house director) of C, provided a blanket collateral guarantee for the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and retired from the office of inside director and was also exempted from the guaranteed obligation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s suit in subrogation of the Defendant B’s right to preserve the claim based on the contract for collateral guarantee against B is unlawful, since there is no preserved right.

B. That can terminate a guarantee contract on grounds of changes in circumstances is limited to cases where the amount of debt is guaranteed due to an uncertain and continuous transaction, such as comprehensive collateral guarantee or limited collateral guarantee, and the director of the company, while holding office as a director of the company, provided a guarantee for a definite debt of which the debt is specified at the time of the guarantee, and then resigned from office.

Even if there is a change in circumstances, the guarantee contract cannot be terminated, and the responsibility of the guarantor is not limited.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da46008, Dec. 27, 1994; 95Da31645, Feb. 14, 1997). B entered into a joint and several guarantee contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff in the form of a “general guarantee”; B, May 1, 2010, retired from the position of a director in the company of C, as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances recognized or explained earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Busan Savings Bank, which concluded a joint and several guarantee contract with B by granting a loan of 16.5 billion won to C, which could have anticipated the scope of liability at the time of entering into a collateral guarantee contract with B, and the additional loan continues to exist after the Plaintiff first granted a loan to C.