2...

A. On March 3, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff as business expenses; (b) decided to repay the loan more than two months thereafter; and (c) asserted that the co-defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”) and the Defendant guaranteed the above loan obligations and sought the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant, both the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, and D, were the salespersons of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which are multilevel distributors, and, in response to the case where the Plaintiff received goods from the said company and provided them to C as assistant salesmen, the Plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate to C as collateral in preparation for the case where the Plaintiff did not receive the price of the goods, and the Defendant signed and sealed the said cash custody certificate upon request by C, and the Plaintiff did not lend KRW 10,00,000 to C.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, 2005, C prepared a cash custody certificate stating "I, on March 3, 2005, that "I swear that "I, on March 3, 2005, 10 million won (10,000,000 won) in G (the plaintiff is referred to as the plaintiff) with the thickness of 3rd F. G (the plaintiff is referred to as the plaintiff) for business expenses," and "I: the recovery period: 60 days (excluding holidays and holidays)" with the plaintiff, it is not sufficient to view that C entered into a monetary loan contract with the plaintiff only with the above recognition, and accordingly, the plaintiff delivered C a 10,000,000 won, and there is no other evidence to support this.

As long as the principal obligation is not recognized, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the performance of the guaranteed obligation against the Defendant is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is concluded differently, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.