1. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation based on a joint and several surety contract does not exist.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has made a claim to deny the fact that the cause of the obligation occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, shall bear the burden of assertion and proof as to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). Of the evidence No. 1, documents prepared by the Plaintiff, such as a joint and several surety contract, shall not be used as evidence since there is no evidence to prove that the documents prepared by the Plaintiff according to the Plaintiff’s intent, and the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a joint and several surety contract with D Co., Ltd. (the company transferring its claim to the Defendant) on January 28, 2016, and there is no other evidence

(W) The contract that the plaintiff voluntarily prepared appears to be E Co., Ltd. Loan Guarantee Contract (see Evidence A No. 3). If so, there is no guarantee obligation based on a joint and several surety contract against the plaintiff on January 28, 2016.

As such, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.