1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the dismissal shall be from the first to the third below below 7th, as follows:

“B) If a person who has become a guarantor for the company’s obligations arising from continuous transactions between the company and a third party as a director leaves the position of director due to the company’s occurrence of significant change in the situation at the time of the formation of the guarantee agreement, the guarantee agreement may be terminated on the ground of such change (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da11826, Jun. 26, 1998). In such a case, where a continuous transaction is terminated prior to the termination of the guarantee agreement or where the principal obligation becomes final and conclusive due to other reasons, the guarantor may not terminate the guarantee agreement on the ground of change in circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1673, May 31, 2002). In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant, who resigned from the K representative director on March 31, 2010, expressed his/her intent to terminate the guarantee contract of this case to M who is the Plaintiff’

Even if a loan contract of this case was concluded on December 23, 2009 and a loan of 5.5 billion won is granted to the principal debtor on the same day, it is clear that the principal obligation of a joint and several surety contract is already established and confirmed. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant cannot terminate the joint and several surety contract of this case

Therefore, the first defendant's argument cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Additional determination

A. On March 31, 2010, the Defendant asserted the exemption of the Defendant’s joint and several liability obligation has resigned from K’s representative director, and the representative director was replaced with the Plaintiff’s employee, and thus, the guarantor is replaced.