1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for this court to accept the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “The third 9th 9th e.g., the issuance date: March 25, 2011” among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and “the second 18th e.g., March 28, 201” to “the issuance date.”

A. 2) Except in the case of using 10 to 5 pages 4, 10 to 12, respectively, the grounds for the judgment of the first instance are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) 2-side 18 through 3-side 4;

A. (2) On August 20, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) with a credit guarantee limit amounting to KRW 750 million, and the credit guarantee period from August 20, 2003 to August 18, 2004. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued a credit guarantee agreement with a foreign exchange bank with the guarantee counterpart, with a guarantee period of KRW 450,50,00,000, the guarantee period of KRW 450,500,000, the guarantee period of KRW 450,500,000, and the guarantee amount of KRW 530,00,00,000, respectively.

(B) The balance of the guaranteed principal has been changed to KRW 344,00,000 upon the termination of a part of the guarantee, and the term of guarantee has been changed to August 19, 201).

The burden of proof on the existence of the harmful act by intention or negligence in the case of the 4th 10 to 5th 12 illegal acts is against the claimant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92272 Decided March 25, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9272, Mar. 28, 201). On the date of the preparation by Defendant C, the person being supplied with the “Defendant A” is the “tax invoice of this case” which states the amount of KRW 30,510,000, the amount of tax, the sum of which is “3,561,000,” and the sum of which is “3,561,000,” respectively.

The fact that Defendant C received a corporate purchase loan of this case from the foreign exchange bank on March 28, 201, when issuing the bill of exchange and presenting the payment of the bill of exchange, is as seen earlier, and according to each of the statements in Gap 9, Eul 1, Eul 2-1, 4, Defendant C.