1. The defendant's case concerning the plaintiff of Gwangju District Court 2007 tea 2878, Jeonnam-gun Court for the plaintiff of Gwangju District Court.

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The defendant is the plaintiff 1 on September 6, 2007. The defendant ordered agricultural cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Agricultural Cooperatives").

(B) The loan transaction agreement was concluded with B to set a limit of KRW 43,100,000 and lent money equivalent to the above limit to B (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan debt (hereinafter “instant joint and several guarantee”).

2) On June 28, 2007, NFF transferred claims based on the instant loan and joint and several sureties to the Defendant.

3) B and the Plaintiff did not repay the principal amounting to KRW 43,100,00 and interest amounting to KRW 18,323,786 as of August 27, 2007. As of the 2007, G and the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order against B, etc. as follows: (a) the 2007 tea2878, Gun court in Full-Gun branch of Gwangju District Court (2007Da2878, Sept. 7, 2007; (b) on September 7, 2007, “the Plaintiff and B jointly and severally paid the amount of KRW 61,423,786 and the amount of KRW 43,100,00 with interest rate of KRW 17% per annum from August 28, 2007 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

(c) The order of this case was issued on September 28, 2007. The original copy was served on the Plaintiff on September 12, 2007. The Plaintiff did not file an objection within the objection period, and the order of this case was finalized on September 28, 2007. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff did not provide joint and several sureties with the instant loan obligations, and did not grant the Plaintiff the authority to conclude the instant joint and several sureties contract on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not jointly obligated to repay the loan of this case to the defendant, and compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiff should be rejected.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, conferred authority to the Plaintiff and jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations. (ii) Even if the Plaintiff did not provide the said joint and several sureties.