1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit and the trial added to the plaintiff.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. On March 7, 2007, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 7, 2007 after delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and then rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim, and the original judgment also serves to the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant becomes aware of this around August 9,

b.

Therefore, the instant subsequent appeal filed by the Defendant within two weeks from August 9, 2017, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice was served by publication, was lawful. 2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion on August 2, 201

A. On or around March 29, 1994, the mutual savings and finance company asserted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “mutual savings and finance company”) provided loans of five million won (5 million won (hereinafter “loan”) to co-defendant B at the first instance trial on August 26, 1994; interest rate of 18.5% per annum; and damages for delay at 20% per annum; and C and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed this. The instant savings and finance company transferred the Plaintiff’s above loan claim (hereinafter “loan claim”) to the Defendant on September 15, 2004; the Defendant, a joint and several surety, notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the loan’s balance to B around November 10, 204; the Defendant, a joint and several surety, at the rate of KRW 18.5% per annum; and the balance of the loan and damages for delay calculated on September 16, 2004, KRW 20537, 2057, 2075.27.75% per annum.

Plaintiff

The succeeding intervenor’s assertion on November 6, 2017 transferred the loan and the instant claim to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and notified the fact of transfer to B around February 1, 2018. As such, the Defendant, a joint guarantor, shall pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor the money set forth in Article 2(a).