1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 1.5 million to the Appointed C (hereinafter “Appointed”) and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed this, and thus, the Appointor, the Defendant, and the Defendant are married with the couple. The Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 1.5 million and interest and delay damages.

On July 4, 2005, the defendant's certificate of monetary loan loan contract No. 1 (the certificate of monetary loan contract) was signed and sealed by the designated person and the defendant, but the creditor of the loan as of July 4, 2005, when the document was prepared, was not the plaintiff, and the "creditors, interest, and delay damages" as of the above document was all the blanks. According to the whole purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as of July 4, 2005, the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff lent the money to the designated person, the amount of KRW 1.25 million was deposited in the defendant's account under the name of the defendant as of July 4, 2005, and the amount of KRW 1.5 million was remitted to D from the account under the defendant's name. However, the plaintiff did not prove that the plaintiff paid the loan to the designated person separately from the above certificate of monetary loan contract.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff acquired documents such as a cash loan contract and a seal related thereto from creditors such as D etc. in the form of bonds acquisition.

(See the Reasons for Appeal of the Supreme Court). Considering the above facts, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent 1.5 million won to the appointed party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Considering that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 1.5 million to the designated parties by recognizing the probative value of the family disposal document, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s loan claim has expired five-year extinctive prescription as commercial bonds.