1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the cancellation shall be dismissed;

2...

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account Gap evidence (including the whole number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff is engaged in the supply business, such as stone stone stone stone and tombstones, with the trade name of “B.”

B. On April 1, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (hereinafter “C”) to supply stone to C (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).

At that time, the Defendant entered into a joint and several sureties contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant joint and several sureties contract”) with the content that the Defendant would provide joint and several sureties with respect to the goods payment obligations under the supply contract.

C. In accordance with the instant supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied C with an amount equivalent to KRW 70,290,000 for stone (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on October 25, 2004, and an amount equivalent to KRW 65,230,000 for stone on October 30, 2004, respectively.

On the other hand, C received tin as above and remitted 44,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2006, and the Plaintiff issued to C a tax invoice of KRW 44,00,000 (including value-added tax).

E. On January 24, 2008, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment decision regarding the Defendant’s real estate (the Jeonju District Court 2008Kahap30, hereinafter “the provisional attachment order of this case”) and executed the provisional attachment on that day by taking the Defendant’s joint and several surety claim of KRW 112,295,000 as the secured claim against the Defendant.

F. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant (the petitioner of the instant case) filed an application for revocation on the ground that the Plaintiff (the respondent of the instant case) did not file a lawsuit within three years from the enforcement of the instant provisional attachment decision, and the instant provisional attachment decision was revoked upon the Defendant’s application on July 29, 2014.

(Seoul District Court Order 2014Kahap316). 2. Determination as to the cause of the action.