1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul borrowed KRW 50 million from the defendant on April 29, 2009 (hereinafter "the loan debt of this case"), and in this case, the plaintiff, C, D, and E jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan debt of this case (hereinafter "joint and several guarantee debt of this case"), and the notary public containing the plaintiff's declaration of consent to compulsory execution as to the above contents was prepared by the No. 496 of the document No. 2009 of April 29, 2009 in the General Law Office of the 21st century (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case").

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the principal debtor of the loan in this case and the joint and several surety B and C, etc., are the principal debtor of the loan in this case, and there was a debt of KRW 10.5 million as of June 21, 2012. The above B, etc., were thereafter KRW 30 million on February 28, 2013, and the same year.

3. On 25.3 million won, the debt of the instant loan was all extinguished by additionally repaying it.

B. Therefore, with respect to whether the debt of this case was extinguished due to the repayment of the debt of this case B, etc., it is difficult to believe that the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 3 (written confirmation of facts) with the content corresponding thereto is as is, and it is insufficient to recognize that the debt of this case was extinguished by the statement of evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 10 (including the serial number). There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.