1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C, on December 23, 2008, borrowed KRW 700 million from D with the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties, and on the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the Seowon Law Firm 2008 (hereinafter “No. 1 notarial deed of this case”).

B. After that, on September 6, 2012, C, a notary public, stating that he borrowed KRW 1 billion from the Defendant from the Defendant, who is the husband of D, drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 2041 of the Seocho-gu Law Firm 2012 (hereinafter “No. 2 notarial deed of this case”).

C. D On July 5, 2013, the status D as C

after the transfer to the defendant of the loan claim described in subsection (1).

9.2. He completed the notification of transfer to C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1-A

No. 1-B. 700 million won in the borrowed amount stated in the subsection.

No. 2 of this case has been prepared with the increase of KRW 1 billion as described in the paragraph, and at the time the defendant and C shall be the first-A.

Section 1(b) is extinguished by any obligation under a cash loan agreement as described in this subsection.

In addition to concluding a new loan for consumption as described in paragraph (1), the Plaintiff, who was a joint guarantor on the No. 1 of this case, was exempted from the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability for D (hereinafter “joint and several liability”).

Nevertheless, it should be rejected as it constitutes a compulsory execution after the extinguishment of a claim, where the defendant acquiring D's loan claim against D is in possession of the No. 1 notarial deed of this case.

B. According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the debt amount of each of the notarial deeds Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is different from KRW 700 million, and the creditor is also the husband of this case, respectively.