1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment below as to the Defendants’ assertion, and thus, it is acceptable.

2. Additional determination

A. (1) The joint and several guarantee agreement of Defendant C and D is null and void since it violates Article 52-2(1) of the Banking Act which prohibits “an act of demanding a third party security in connection with credit transactions to provide a joint and several guarantee” and Article 24-4 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Banking Act.

(2) The above provision of the Banking Act does not provide any provision concerning the validity of the joint and several guarantee agreement in violation of the provision, but only provides that an administrative fine shall be imposed on the bank, executive officer, or employee who violated the provision (Article 69 of the Banking Act). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the said provision is a mandatory provision denying the validity of the joint and several guarantee agreement in violation of the above provision. Moreover, it is difficult to view that the said provision newly established at the time of the amendment on May 17, 2010 applies to the joint and several guarantee agreement

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. (1) Article 5(2) of the Special Act on the Protection of Suretys provides that “a financial institution which has entered into a guarantee agreement as a creditor shall inform the guarantor of the fact without delay if the principal debtor fails to perform the principal, interest, and other obligations for one month or more.” However, the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendants of such fact. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

(2) In the event that the judgment obligee violates the obligation stipulated in Article 5(2) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety, the surety can be exempted from the obligation to the extent that the damage incurred thereby (see Article 5(4) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety), and the Defendant C and D are due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the obligation to notify.