1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The defendant is the co-defendant A Co-defendant A and B in the first instance trial.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the part concerning the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As seen earlier, it is the fact that the Defendant C’s seal affixed to the credit guarantee agreement of this case is the same as the seal affixed on the certificate of the personal seal impression to establish the authenticity of the credit guarantee agreement of this case.

Therefore, it is actually presumed that the authenticity of the seal imprint is based on Defendant C’s will, and the authenticity of the entire credit guarantee agreement is presumed to be established by Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the credit guarantee agreement of this case was forged by fraudulent B, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. According to the above facts of determination, pursuant to the credit guarantee agreement of this case, the defendant who jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to reimburse the plaintiff by Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter "A") under the credit guarantee agreement of this case is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 85,206,513 (amounting to KRW 84,306,133 for failed payment by subrogation, KRW 900,380 for failed payment by subrogation), and KRW 84,306,133 for the plaintiff from March 5, 2013, which is the date of subrogation, until March 29, 2013, the last delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, to KRW 12% per annum, which is the rate of delay damages, and the next day until the date of complete payment, to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s joint and several liability asserted by the Defendant has expired on September 27, 2010, which is the guarantee period, and the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement due to the said subrogation occurred when the Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation was discharged after the expiration of the guarantee period, and the Defendant did not consent to the extension of the guarantee period. Therefore, the above guarantee period occurred after the lapse of the guarantee period.