1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on March 24, 2018, and the Defendant guaranteed the obligation to return the borrowed money. 2) Even if the Defendant did not conclude a guarantee agreement for the Defendant’s behalf, the Defendant is liable for the appearance that C would have the power to conclude a guarantee agreement for the obligation of a loan on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s guarantee obligation against the Plaintiff is valid in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency.

B. Each evidence (including evidence submitted in the appellate trial) of the Plaintiff’s submission is insufficient to admit the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim for deposit that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit.

(The judgment of the court of first instance on the claim for a loan which is a litigant has been withdrawn due to a change in the exchange of the lawsuit filed in this court.)