1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 2008, the Defendant, under the Plaintiff’s joint and several guarantee, lent 20 million won interest rate of 20 million won to C, who is the ancillary of the Plaintiff, at the rate of 2% per month.

(hereinafter “instant loan obligations”). B.

In lending money as above, the Defendant respectively received from the Plaintiff, ① as the Plaintiff, a promissory note with a face value of KRW 20 million with a face value of KRW 20 million with the payee as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) from the Plaintiff, and ② a housing lease agreement with a lessee C, a lease deposit of KRW 40 million with a lessee C (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming a loan with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da1106791 on the ground that the Plaintiff and C did not pay the instant loan obligations.

On January 9, 2014, the above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation that "the defendant (the plaintiff of this case and the defendant of this case) jointly and severally paid to the plaintiff (the defendant of this case) the amount of KRW 20 million and the amount calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from September 29, 2008 to the date of full payment." This decision became final and conclusive on January 29, 2014 because the plaintiff and C did not raise any objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap 1 to 3, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C decided to pay 60,000 won as principal and interest on the instant loan obligation to the Defendant, and accordingly, paid KRW 25,274,30 each time from October 2, 2008 to October 25, 201, a total of KRW 60,000,000 each time over 301 times. As such, the instant loan obligation was fully repaid.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that C performed the obligation of the instant loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to acknowledge it.