1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The Plaintiff’s revocation part against the Defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 5, 2008, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendants through the introduction of D, and lent KRW 20 million to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the representative director, to Defendant B (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendants and Nonparty F jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligations against E on the same day.

B.1) D) On August 30, 2010, D filed a complaint with the Defendants and F to the effect that E, the Defendants, and F did not perform the work of collecting aggregate, etc. without paying the instant loan. (2) D) on the same day after consultation with the Defendants and F, in the course of the trial of the Fraud case (hereinafter “instant case”), Busan District Court Decision 2009DaGa1772 against the Defendants and F (hereinafter “instant case”), D drafted and submitted a written withdrawal of the complaint stating that “I will withdraw the complaint, in the instant case, since the Defendants and F agreed with the Defendants and F,” and on the same day, “I wish to have any relevant punishment.”

3) On August 30, 2010 in the instant related case, F was sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000,000, and the Defendants received each suspended sentence, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant B is a joint and several surety for the principal debtor of the instant loan obligation, and Defendant C is a joint and several surety for the said loan obligation, and is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the said obligation by the Defendants, and thus the statute of limitations was interrupted.

B. Defendants 1) The Plaintiff revoked the complaint against the Defendants through D in the trial process of the instant case, and agreed with the Defendants not to raise any and all issues related to the instant loan. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. 2)