1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 33 million, and Defendant B from November 12, 2014 to Defendant C.

1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole and the arguments, as the plaintiff was unable to repay the money to the defendant Eul, the defendant and the defendant prepared a cash custody certificate with the purport of receiving 33 million won from the defendant Eul to April 30, 2005 to receive the promise to repay the money. The defendant Eul prepared a cash custody certificate with the plaintiff on March 5, 2005 to pay the above money to the plaintiff by August 30, 2005 where the defendant Eul did not pay the above money between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on March 5, 2005, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant Eul guaranteed the defendant Eul's obligation to pay the above money to the plaintiff by August 30, 2005, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above 33 million won to the plaintiff and a copy of the complaint with the plaintiff as the date of payment after the maturity (the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the above 3.3 million won to the plaintiff at the rate of 120.3% to 2.

2. As to this, Defendant C, at the time of the preparation of the cash custody certificate, was the merchant operating the real estate business or the construction company, and thus, Defendant B’s debt is the commercial debt. However, Defendant B’s debt was extinguished due to the lapse of five years after the maturity date for the cash custody certificate, and accordingly, Defendant C’s debt was extinguished. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant was that Defendant B was the merchant at the time of preparation of the cash custody certificate.

In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize the preparation of a cash storage certificate as a commercial activity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by Defendant C is without merit.

Defendant C again loses the right of defense of the highest search that Defendant C could have been exercised, as the Plaintiff did not exercise the right to adequate rights against Defendant C, the principal obligor, and thus, Defendant C bears the responsibility of the Plaintiff.