1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

The defendant of the claim shall be co-defendant of the first instance trial.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications:

[Revision] Three pages of the first instance judgment

B. In the part list, the defendants are all aware of the "A" as "A (State) photograph (Defendants)".

On August 7, 2015, the first instance court's decision No. 4 stated "by August 7, 2013" as "by August 7, 2015."

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court stated "A Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including cases with various numbers)" as "A Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), 2, 3-2, 3-4, 1, 2, and 6."

The following details shall be added to Chapter 9 of the decision of the first instance.

“The Defendant asserts about this, as follows:

The instant agreement (Evidence A 2) does not include a disposal document, but does not include the other party, the subject to whom the right is vested, and the purport of confirming the settlement, etc. of the amount received before August 21, 2013 is to confirm the settlement, etc. of the amount received, and is merely a simple fact confirmation document

However, in full view of the background and contents of the above document, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, etc., it is reasonable to view the above document as a disposition document not merely confirming the fact of king, but also a document prepared to adjust the existing legal relations and settle the balance of the purchase price unpaid through mutual interests between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that there is no guarantee obligation of the defendant, signed and sealed as the guarantor, because the contract party and the principal debtor did not have the name and seal of the photograph, which is the contract party and the principal debtor, in the letter of performance of this case (No. 1-1).

However, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was made on August 21, 2013 by the agreement of August 21, 2013.