1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. E obtained a loan of KRW 3.5 million from the Defendant on September 21, 201, at an annual interest rate of 39%, and in the column of joint and several surety of the guarantee agreement on the loan, the Plaintiff’s personal information is indicated as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant Guarantee Agreement”). o Name: A (Plaintiff) resident registration number: Bo telephone number: CO address: Gangwon-do human resource group D

B. At the time of the instant guarantee agreement, the Defendant had gone through a personal verification procedure via a copy of the Plaintiff’s driver’s license, a written confirmation of acquisition and loss of health insurance (the issuance date September 14, 201), and a written confirmation of payment of health and long-term care insurance premium (the issuance date September 14, 201).

C. The employee of the Defendant posted a phone call with the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number (C) on the date of the instant guarantee agreement, but the other party responded to the fact that he/she was the Plaintiff (A) and that he/she was the joint and several surety for the loan obligations of E.

On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against E and the Defendant to pay the principal and interest of the loan, and the payment order (Scheon-gun District Court 2014Da253) was issued.

E. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff is required to exclude the Defendant from the guarantor because it did not have any joint and several guarantee agreement with the Defendant with respect to the lending of E.

F. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against E under the name of a crime, such as fabrication of private documents, on the ground that E forged the column for joint and several surety under the instant guarantee agreement, but the prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors’ Office decided on July 31, 2014 to suspend prosecution against E (the temporary suspension of prosecution and submission of criminal conciliation).

G. In this court, the Plaintiff stated that, in addition to the instant case, there was a joint and several surety agreement on E’s loan obligations, and that there was no fact that the Plaintiff permitted or lent a mobile phone to be transferred to another person and used it, but that it lent a currency temporarily.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;