1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A, B, and C in excess of the money ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasons for this court's explanation are as follows: (a) the addition of "the addition of paragraph (2)" between the three parallels and four parallels in the first instance court's judgment; (b) the offset against the claims equivalent to the value added tax refund (i) through (iii) the offset against the claims for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the value added tax, and (iv) the part of "the lawsuit" in the fourth parallels and four parallels and lowers in the first instance court's reasoning, except for each dismissal as set forth below (iii) and (iv) the part of "the lawsuit" in the fourth parallels and lowers as set forth in the second instance's reasoning; and (iv) the addition is null and void by the main sentence of Article S of the Civil Procedure Act Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is in accordance with the main sentence of the same Act for the protection of the guarantor (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant B, etc.").

) The joint and several sureties for the Defendant Company’s obligations related to the instant agency contract (hereinafter “instant joint and several sureties”).

Even if this is considered to have been automatically renewed on January 8, 2009, the Special Act on the Protection of Surety(hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Protection of Surety").

According to the provisions of this case, the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt should be specified in writing in the case of the key guarantee such as the joint and several surety of this case and the renewal of the guarantee contract and the guarantee period that are not specified in writing shall not be effective. The joint and several surety of this case does not specify in writing the maximum amount of the guaranteed debt at the time of renewal on January 8, 2009, which is after the enforcement date of the Guarantee Act, and thus the renewal is null and void. In conclusion, the guarantee contract relationship for the joint and several surety of this case is terminated on January 8, 2009. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant B, etc. of this case constitutes a guarantor excluded from the application of the Guarantee Act as provided in subparagraph 1 (a) through (f) of Article 2 of the Guarantee Act.