1. The Defendant’s KRW 181,925,395 among the Plaintiff and KRW 181,603,286 among the Plaintiff, shall be from January 21, 2016 to January 31, 2016.

1. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 of the judgment as to the cause for the claim, each of the grounds for the claim is acknowledged, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not anticipate that B, a principal debtor, would discontinue the business and go bankrupt at the time of the extension of the credit guarantee in this case, and there was no signature on any document at the time of the closure of the business and bankruptcy, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, the guarantor, is unjustifiable, but the above assertion alone does not constitute a ground to block the claim

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's right to defense of the highest search of the guarantor is not recognized in the case of joint and several liability guarantee. Thus, pursuant to the proviso of Article 437 of the Civil Act, the defendant cannot raise the highest search defense against the plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 437 of the Civil Act to the effect that the plaintiff can file a claim against the defendant for the performance of the obligation against the guarantor. Accordingly, the plaintiff's defense of the claim in this case is without merit. Thus, the defendant's defense of the highest search of the guarantor is justified.