2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3.The ancillary.

A. On July 25, 2011, the Plaintiff, a credit service provider, extended a loan of KRW 3 million to B at the interest rate of KRW 34.8% per annum, KRW 37 months from the date of the repayment due date, and KRW 146,000 per month of the repayment due date, and in the process, a loan transaction agreement was prepared by the Defendant under the name of the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant is jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations of the Defendant

B. Around that time, the employee in charge of the Plaintiff called to the Defendant and explained the terms and conditions of the loan and the contents of the joint and several sureties, and confirmed whether or not the intent of the joint and several sureties and the written application of the joint and several sureties contract were written.

C. The obligations of the above loans currently remain the principal amount of KRW 2,506,918 and damages for delay from March 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry and recording file of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is primarily based on the Plaintiff’s assertion: (i) the Defendant, as a joint and several surety, signed the Defendant’s own signature and seal as a joint and several surety; (ii) the employee in charge of the Plaintiff verified the Plaintiff’s signature and the Plaintiff’s intent of joint and several surety; and (iii) concluded a joint and several surety agreement with the Plaintiff as valid; and (iv)

② Preliminaryly, the Defendant stated that there was a joint and several sureties’s intention while making a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of joint and several sureties, and that the said loan transaction contract was written in writing, and that B had the Plaintiff deliver a copy of the Defendant’s resident registration certificate to the Plaintiff, etc., and incurred damages equivalent to the said amount by having the Plaintiff lend KRW 3 million to B, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be liable for damages equivalent to the remaining principal of the loan.