1. The appeal against the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part concerning "decision on counterclaims" as stated below among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part concerning counterclaims, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the part concerning counterclaims.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. (1) On April 201, 201, the Defendant’s assertion (A) rejected the Defendant’s claim for the performance of the guaranteed obligation on the grounds that, upon receiving a request for a full-time processing of a full-time care delivery from the Non-Party Company to E, it was difficult for the Non-Party Company to receive the full-time processing payment from the Non-Party Company before receiving the request.

However, the non-party company agreed to pay 83,718,520 won for the goods to be supplied to E at the defendant's Busan factory in 2011, which is the representative of the non-party company, and the vice president, the non-party company, and the non-party company, who is the vice president, shall pay 83,718,520 won for the goods to be jointly and severally guaranteed by M and the plaintiff, and as well as M, the plaintiff shall prepare and deliver a written confirmation (No. 34-1 of the evidence No. 34) stating that the defendant is jointly and severally guaranteed by the non-party company's obligation to pay the above goods to the defendant on April 14, 2011.

(B) However, in 2011, the subordinate shop ordered by E does not reach the volume to be processed in the Defendant’s Busan factory, a large factory, and the Defendant, instead of processing, provided the Defendant with a full amount of the purchase cost of the subordinate shop to be processed in the non-party company’s factory and the purchase cost of the goods that the Defendant would subsequently pay to the Defendant for all the goods that he would subsequently receive from E, instead of processing, and provided the non-party company with a loan of KRW 69,100,000 in total over several times from April 16, 201 to the sub-committee company. The non-party company supplied the subordinate shop uniform processing with the above funds.

(C) Nonparty.