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 of this case are as follows: (a) each statement of evidence Nos. 4 through Na 13 (including, if any, serial numbers) with respect to the defendant's assertion as evidence submitted additionally in the trial; (b) witness D, C's testimony; and (c) No. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of each of the following judgment to the court below's 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) as such, it is identical to the statement of the reasons for the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance

【Additional Statement: [A] The part of the joint and several surety agreement in this case is valid, which constitutes a continuous guarantee agreement, that is, a defendant's obligation arising from a continuous transaction with the plaintiff of the defendant company which inevitably constitutes a joint and several surety due to the defendant's representative director's status, and thereafter, the defendant expressed his/her intent to terminate the joint and several surety agreement in this case to the plaintiff around February 2013, which is the time when the defendant withdraws from the position of representative director. Since the joint and several surety agreement in this case claims that the contract in this case was terminated as the exercise of the right to terminate the contract on the ground of change of circumstances, it cannot be unilaterally terminated the guarantee contract for the company's obligation, unlike the case of continuous guarantee or comprehensive collateral guarantee (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da30675, Jul. 4, 2006), since the joint and several surety agreement in this case constitutes a limited guarantee agreement with the amount of obligation and the representative director whose maturity period has been specified, it cannot be unilaterally terminated due to changes in circumstances as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant's objection to the different premise.