1. The Defendant’s KRW 124,893,309 against the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from May 21, 2018 to August 16, 2018, and the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. From October 25, 2017 to January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff supplied C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) with goods, such as instant block. On April 6, 2018, C Co., Ltd provided the Plaintiff with a debt repayment guarantee of KRW 54,00,00 on April 24, 2018, and KRW 70,893,309, total amount of KRW 124,893,309, and KRW 124,893,309 on May 20, 2018, and the Defendant, a director of C, as the joint and several surety on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 124,893,309 won for joint and several liability and damages for delay at each rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from May 21, 2018 to August 16, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that C's representative director D had the signature of joint and several sureties inevitably in order to listen to the end and live in the work of the upper party, and he has retired at present, so there is no joint and several sureties liability.

B. Even if the representative director D of the judgment C remains dead, it is difficult to view that there was a coercion corresponding to the grounds for invalidation or revocation, and where the director of the company entered into a guarantee agreement with respect to the company's obligation of which the amount of debt and the due date are specified, the director cannot unilaterally terminate the said guarantee agreement on the grounds of change in circumstances such as continuous guarantee or comprehensive collateral guarantee (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da35276, Jul. 24, 1998), unlike the continuous guarantee or comprehensive collateral guarantee (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da35276, Jul. 24

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.