1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "Written Disapproval was prepared in its own name, and a promissory note amounting to KRW 41.5 million has been issued in its own name," and "No. 5-2" was added in No. 2, No. 3, No. 8, and "No. 12" was "(the plaintiff cannot be seen as the defendant)" in No. 3, No. 2, No. 13, No. 2, No. 13, No. 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiff asserted to the effect that the interruption of prescription has an effect of interruption of prescription as to the defendant company since the plaintiff's act of preparing and issuing promissorysory note as a joint and several surety as well as the defendant company's individual, but the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant company prepared and issued the above written notarial note as a joint and several surety or a joint and several surety and several surety, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above defendant company's new sureties or a new sureties.