All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the instant monetary supplement agreement constitutes an evasion of the law of prohibition of the debt guarantee for affiliated companies prohibited under Article 21-4(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14813, Apr. 18, 2017) and Article 15 and Article 10-2(1) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, and Article 21-4(1)2(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28197, Jul. 17, 2017) merely constitutes an evasion of the law of prohibition of the debt guarantee for affiliated companies prohibited under Article 21-4(1)2(a) of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the provisions of each of the above statutes, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on effective regulations, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, there is no reason to deem the instant monetary supplement agreement as contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or as an anti-social juristic act.

Therefore, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the definition and equity, the principle of good faith, and the validity of a legal act contrary to social order, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation of the instant loan to J directly against the Plaintiff.

The court determined that the debt cannot be deemed to have been acquired in a double manner.

Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff is in the position of beneficiary who has a direct right to claim supplementary funds against B.