1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 facts below the basic facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 20, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial as a whole.

On September 2003, the Plaintiff was working as an employee at the Plaintiff’s entertainment establishment under the trade name “D” operated by the Defendant. Around that time, the Plaintiff guaranteed the Defendant’s prepaid liability of KRW 80 million against the Defendant, who is another employee of the said entertainment establishment (hereinafter “instant prepaid obligation”).

B. However, around December 2004, C laid off the instant prepaid debt to Japan without discharging it.

The Plaintiff’s KRW 4.1 million to the Defendant on March 11, 2005, and the same year

6.4.28 million won, for the same year.

6. 27.3 million won, and the same year.

7.1. 4.9 million won, and the same year.

8. 16.5 million won, and the same year.

9.6.5 million won was paid respectively.

(total amount of KRW 50 million).

C returned to the Republic of Korea on June 2006, and on November 29, 2006, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note of “the Plaintiff on January 30, 2007,” which read “the Plaintiff on January 30, 2007.” From April 5, 2007 to June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 39,90,000 to KRW 49,99 million in total.

(Plaintiffs asserted that they received KRW 39.9 million from C, and that C paid KRW 49.9 million to the Plaintiff).

In addition, C paid not less than KRW 60,000 to the Defendant as the repayment of the advanced payment of this case after returning to Korea.

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) did not guarantee the obligation of the instant prepaid payment. Even if not, it is revoked because the Plaintiff’s guarantee is guaranteed by the Defendant’s coercion. (2) The Plaintiff’s guarantee is not a joint and several guarantee, and thus is entitled to exercise the highest search defense. However, it is inevitable for the Defendant, as the Plaintiff, to do so on the wind of assault and intimidation while the Plaintiff was detained, to part of the instant prepaid payment obligation to the Defendant.