The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

The scope of the court's adjudication

A. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part regarding D’s bankruptcy trustee of the debtor corporation B, the administrator of the debtor corporation B, which is the administrator of the debtor corporation B, the debtor corporation B, the debtor corporation, the assignee of the lawsuit of the debtor corporation B, among the judgment of the first instance court, was appealed by the above defendant Lessee, but the appeal was withdrawn on December 20, 2019 and confirmed as is.

B. As to the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit, dismissed the defendant's claim on the counterclaim, and the defendant filed an appeal on the whole principal lawsuit and counterclaim, but withdrawn an appeal on the part on the counterclaim on December 26, 2019, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part on the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of

2. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: 1. Basic facts in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the following "3. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is identical to the part of the plaintiff's main claim (from 16th to 13th 18th am the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Additional determination

A. 1) Whether a lawful guarantee contract with the defendant as a joint and several surety has been concluded or not, the employee J of B, who is not the defendant, stated the defendant's personal information in the column for joint and several surety under the Class I transaction contract of this case, and affixed a seal. As such, the joint and several surety contract without the defendant's name and seal or signature is null and void in violation of Article 428-2 (1) of the Civil Act, which provides for the strict formal requirements of the guarantee contract, and thus, the defendant is not liable for the joint and several surety. 2) Article 428-2 (1) of the Civil Act of the relevant legal principles provides clear means of confirmation as to the existence and content