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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the modification of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part II of the judgment of the first instance court, "E (hereinafter referred to as "E")" is "E (hereinafter referred to as "E") of the agricultural company E (hereinafter referred to as "E"), "liability of KRW 50,000,000" in Part III 7 as "liability of KRW 52,00,000", and Part III 9 as "D has jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity liability of the previous North Korean Credit Guarantee Foundation", and Part III 9 as "D has jointly and severally guaranteed the indemnity liability of the previous North Korean Credit Guarantee Foundation", and the part III at the second 6th 2017 at the bottom of the second 6th 7th 3rd 2017."

In the first instance judgment at the bottom of the first instance court's 6th "the point of July 31, 2017", the defendant argued that the defendant did not know that D, the debtor, did not own the name of the representative director and did not have any involvement in the operation of E, and that E has deteriorated at the time of the instant mortgage contract. However, the defendant did not know of such circumstances. However, in the criminal case where D's complaint was made, the above H explained that E's financial status was not good at the time of receiving additional loans from the bank, upon request from D on May 18, 2017, and explained that E's financial status was not good at the time of receiving additional loans from the bank. Since around July 2017, the defendant stated that D, the debtor, was unable to explain the fact to D, and that it would have been understood in advance that it would have been a joint and several surety obligation.