1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. The evidence submitted by the defendant in Part 6 of Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance added "and testimony of witness B of the court of first instance" to "the evidence submitted by the defendant", and the part 2 (a) is as follows, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The fact that the part of the loan extended by the non-party company was jointly and severally and severally guaranteed by the non-party company B at the time of lending KRW 2 billion from the plaintiff on November 26, 2007 is as seen earlier, and according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 12 through 15, the fact that the maturity of the loan extended by the non-party company to the plaintiff of the loan extended twice to the non-party company by July 2008 and July 26, 2010 is recognized as jointly and severally guaranteed by the non-party company at the time of the extension of the loan extended to July 26, 2010.

Meanwhile, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the claim should be established by the near future legal relations. In cases where a claim has been created by the realization of the probability in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved claim of the obligee

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety agreement with the Plaintiff was concluded at the time of the instant mortgage agreement, and the legal relationship that forms the basis for the establishment of the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety claim was generated. Moreover, in full view of the written evidence No. 5-2 of the pleadings, the Nonparty Company first delayed payment of interest of KRW 7.8 billion from July 26, 201 to July 26, 2010 for the principal and interest of the said loan obligation, and then interest of KRW 13.6 billion for the loan obligation on July 26, 2010.