A. The Plaintiff lent money several times to Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial in 2008, and at the same time, from May 20, 2009 to around KRW 120,000,000, the amount of the loan from B up to the time was confirmed as KRW 120,000,000 among them, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000 as of May 31, 2009, and the remainder of KRW 60,000 as of June 30, 200.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). (b)

At that time, the Plaintiff received from Defendant C, E, Co-Defendant D, F, etc., the certificate of No. 2 (cash storage) from Defendant C, E, the first instance court’s co-Defendant D, and F as the guarantor regarding the instant agreement through Co-Defendant F of the first instance trial.

C. Defendant C is the husband of Defendant C, and B left the Republic of Korea on June 18, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant E

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant E requested the Plaintiff to lend the instant money, and sent text messages to the effect that he is responsible for the Defendant B’s obligation to borrow the instant money, as well as signed and sealed on the cash storage certificate (Evidence A2). As such, Defendant E bears the joint and several liability for the instant agreed money.

B. 1) Determination 1) The name and resident registration number of Defendant E are written at the bottom of the above cash custody certificate as to the authenticity of the above cash custody certificate, and the fact that the name and resident registration number were written by Defendant E, or the seal was affixed by Defendant E is no dispute between the parties. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the name and resident registration number were written by Defendant E or the seal affixed by Defendant E’s resident registration number was made by Defendant E, and thus, the part of the above cash custody certificate cannot be used as evidence since it cannot be recognized as the authenticity. 2) According to each description of the evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 10 (including each number) as to whether Defendant E’s other guarantee intention was admitted, the Plaintiff’s mobile phone will be held responsible for receiving housing loans as security.