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

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

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant guaranteed the first loan of this case is difficult to accept even if the evidence examined by this court was also examined.

First of all, the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 10, which include the contents of confirmation in Eul's testimony of witness B of the court corresponding to the above argument, are as follows: the above witness and the plaintiff, the interest with the defendant, and the interest with respect to the first loan of this case from Eul who is the debtor, while the plaintiff received a loan from the debtor Eul, the defendant did not secure a document or objective evidence related to joint and several sureties, and it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the recorded dialogue between the plaintiff and the defendant as follows.

Next, according to the evidence No. 7-1 and No. 2 (Recording) of the Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff was unable to repay the first loan from the Plaintiff, the Defendant was liable for the first KRW 20 million on August 5, 2012 for the opportunity to find the Defendant together with son on August 5, 2012.

It is difficult to conclude that the defendant was a joint and several surety despite the fact that he or she made a statement to the effect that he or she did not wish to do so, and it is also difficult to conclude that the defendant was a joint and several surety, and the first part of the amount of KRW 20 million is inconsistent with the details of the loan or the amount of the loan certificate submitted by the plaintiff

The remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's joint and several liability.

2. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.