1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to E Co., Ltd. on May 2, 2008 as interest rate of KRW 2% per month and on August 1, 2008. In this case, Defendant B, the representative of E Co., Ltd., and Defendant B, the wife of D, guaranteed the above loan obligation.

In addition, on August 12, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to E Co., Ltd. 2% of interest per month, and on August 12, 2009, Defendant C, the wife of D, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation.

However, the Plaintiff did not receive interest on each of the above loans since January 2010.

Therefore, as a joint and several surety, the Defendants are obligated to pay the above loans and interest and damages for delay after January 1, 2010 to the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

B. The Defendants alleged by the Defendants did not know of each of their respective loans asserted by the Plaintiff and did not have any joint and several sureties, nor did they delegate to D the preparation of a loan certificate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

2. Although there are evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as shown in the Plaintiff’s above assertion, among them, there is a dispute that the Defendants’ respective seal imprints are not based on the seals of the Defendants, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the identity of the seal imprints.

In addition, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, D’s seal was affixed at the time when the Defendants were not present at the time when the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 and 3 was prepared, and in such a case, D’s seal was affixed to the Defendants with the legitimate title delegated by the Defendants, who are the names of drafting D. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no fact that at the time the Plaintiff did not have been presented the power of attorney from D and the Defendants

Therefore, A.