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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is a corporation operating liquor wholesale business, and Defendant A operated a general food hall under the trade name “D” in the south-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Ulsan-gu, and the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with Defendant A to lend KRW 15 million for the purpose of facility funds (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) around March 2008, and Defendant B guaranteed the repayment of the loan.

Therefore, according to the loan agreement of this case, Defendant A is the principal debtor, and Defendant B is a joint and several surety, and the principal and interest of the loan stated in the claim should be paid jointly to the

B. We examine whether the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A was concluded.

As evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the document for facility loan (A) submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be used as evidence because the authenticity is not recognized (B). According to the entries in subparagraph 2 and the result of the written appraisal by appraiser E, it is not a penology of the Defendant A, but a stamp image based on the above Defendant’s seal imprint), and it is difficult to view that the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was concluded between the Plaintiff and the above Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that the instant loan agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A.

In addition, as long as Defendant A, the principal obligor, is not recognized as a debt based on the instant loan agreement, Defendant B’s guaranteed obligation is not established due to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.