1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Determination as to the claim for reimbursement against Defendant A

A. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A and issued a credit guarantee agreement. Defendant A submitted the said credit guarantee agreement to Nonparty-friendly Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) and borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from Nonparty bank.

However, the guarantee accident occurred that Defendant A delays the payment of interest on the above loan, and on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff subrogated to Nonparty A bank for KRW 9,909,82 and recovered KRW 256,570 among them.

Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay the remainder of the subrogated payment to the Plaintiff (=9,909,822 - 256,570 won) and damages for delay.

B. The instant evidence Nos. 1 (Credit Guarantee Agreement) and 3 (Agreement on Credit Transactions) cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of each authenticity (the result of the written appraisal by an appraiser H of the court of first instance, it is recognized that the instant evidence Nos. 1 and 3 are highly likely to differ from the instant written evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and that the instant credit guarantee agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.)

There is no evidence to prove that the above credit transaction agreement was concluded between the non-party bank and the defendant A, and it is difficult to find that the entries in the evidence No. 8-1 to No. 3 alone approved obligations under the above credit guarantee agreement and the credit transaction agreement after the fact, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A cannot be accepted as it is without any need to further examine the remainder of the claim, such as the scope of the reimbursement for reimbursement.

2. On the premise that the Plaintiff owned the claim for reimbursement against Defendant A with respect to the revocation of creditor and the claim for restitution against Defendant B, the Plaintiff was on June 19, 2014, on the premise that he/she had the claim for reimbursement against Defendant A.