1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit due to the preliminary claim.

1. After remanding, the Plaintiff at the first instance trial against the Defendant: (a) in relation to C’s primary claim, C issued and delivered a promissory note worth KRW 10 million in face value to the Plaintiff; (b) on the ground that the Defendant’s endorsement on the said promissory note to the effect that C guarantees the amount of KRW 10 million out of the above borrowed amount, the Plaintiff sought performance of the guaranteed obligation; and (c) on the ground that the said promissory note’s claim was extinguished by the prescription, the Plaintiff asserted the right to claim reimbursement of benefit under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and sought payment of KRW 10 million in face value.

As the court of first instance fully accepted the plaintiff's main claim, the defendant appealed, and the appellate court prior to remand, the appellate court revoked the judgment of the first instance, and dismissed the plaintiff's main claim while not rendering any judgment on the conjunctive claim. Accordingly, the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed, and the Supreme Court's appeal against the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed, and it is obvious that the court reversed and remanded the conjunctive claim.

Therefore, since the part against the Plaintiff prior to the remanding of the case, other than the part on the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim, was finalized at the same time as the judgment on the reversal and return of the case, the subject of the trial after the remanding of the case is limited to the part on the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67971, Jan. 11, 207).

A. Basic facts 1) C borrowed KRW 14 million from the Plaintiff on June 12, 2008, and on September 10, 2008, as of September 10, 2008, a promissory note with the face value of KRW 10 million and the due date of payment as of December 10, 2008 (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).

(2) On February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted the right of recourse based on the Promissory Notes against the Defendant, and the Changwon District Court.