1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,00 to Defendant B, and Defendant C asserts that the above obligation to return the loan was jointly and severally guaranteed.

First, the claim against the defendant B is examined.

The above defendant's evidence Nos. 1, which did not dispute the establishment of the petition, states that the above defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in Eul's statement, it is acknowledged that not only Defendant B but also the Plaintiff and D also drafted a certificate of loan of KRW 50,00,000 with the same content as on June 7, 2010; the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,000 to the E's account on June 8, 2010; the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of claim for the return of loan against D and F (the person recorded as a joint guarantor in D's loan certificate) on the ground of D's loan certificate prepared by D; the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of claim for the return of loan of KRW 14,00,000 at the appellate court after receiving the judgment of dismissal at the first instance; in light of this, notwithstanding the statement of KRW 1,00,000 at the disposal document, the Plaintiff cannot be viewed otherwise as having leased the Defendant B around June 7, 2010.

The plaintiff's claim against the above defendant is without merit.

We examine the following claims against Defendant C.

As seen above, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have borrowed KRW 50,00,000, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the part on which Defendant C’s signature and seal was affixed among the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant is without merit.