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 of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court of first instance, among the judgment of the court of first instance, shall dismiss “C” of 2, 9, 10, 15, and 3, 14 as “D” respectively; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for adding “a new determination on the part additionally claimed by the defendant” as to the part additionally claimed by the defendant in the trial. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. Determination on new arguments

A. Although the defendant's assertion that he did not have sufficient means to repay the defendant's share of the defendant's share of the share of the defendant's apportionment should be borne by the plaintiff, since the plaintiff exempted from solidarity with D, the part to be shared by D under Article 427 (2) of the Civil Code should be borne by the plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, as to the non-party company’s indemnity obligation against the plaintiff, the defendant and D entered into a joint and several liability agreement with the plaintiff around April 15, 2003. On November 7, 2008, the plaintiff agreed to exempt the remainder from the remainder of the indemnity obligation when repayment of KRW 14,761,765, out of KRW 45,404,477, as to the indemnity obligation against D and the non-party company was made. Accordingly, D is acknowledged to have been exempted from the remainder of the indemnity obligation from the plaintiff on December 12, 2014 by fully paying the above amount to the plaintiff on December 12, 2014.

However, Article 427 of the Civil Act and Article 448 (2) of the Civil Act governing the right to demand reimbursement between joint and several obligors or between joint guarantors. The plaintiff is not a creditor in relation to the non-party company, defendant and D, and is not a person in the position of joint and several obligors or joint guarantors. This case does not fall under the case of exercising the right to demand reimbursement against the other joint and several obligors or joint guarantors after payment of some of the joint and several obligors or joint guarantors. Thus, the plaintiff's exercise of rights cannot be restricted

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.