1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant B and D and the defendant B's appeal.

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C is lawful or ex officio, and the appeal against the plaintiff can only be brought to the disadvantage judgment against him/her. Thus, the appeal against the judgment with respect to the whole winning case is unlawful as there is no benefit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235 Decided July 13, 2007, etc.). In this case, the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant C, and as long as the Plaintiff won the whole amount of the claim against the Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant C is unlawful as it has no benefit from appeal.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff loaned interest of KRW 3 million to Eul on or around March 27, 199 to Nov. 28, 2003, including lending the interest of KRW 50 million from around that time to Nov. 28, 2003, and it can be acknowledged that the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the borrowed money corresponding to each of the corresponding numbers. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff, KRW 34 million, and KRW 15 million to the defendant Eul, and the defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay the agreed interest of KRW 5 million and the agreed interest of the above amount to the defendant C.

Defendant C4, 3,00,000 annual 24% on March 27, 1999, a joint and several surety, the due date of payment of the loan of which is 3,00,000 and 24% on June 27, 1999, and there is no Dong on August 28, 299, 5,000,000 or more on May 10, 200, 26, Defendant C4, which had no Dong on September 28, 200, 3,000 or more on September 3, 200, 200, and on December 5, 2000, No aggregate of Defendant C4,000 or more on July 4, 200, 200, and on June 30, 200, C08 and 3008, respectively.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B agreed to repay all of the above loan debt amounting to KRW 50 million or assumed a double debt around August 2004 by Defendant B, his mother, but it is reasonable to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the basis of the written evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 15.