1. The plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim that are changed in exchange at the trial are all dismissed.

2...

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) On November 26, 2009, the plaintiff as the primary cause of the claim lent KRW 20 million to the defendant C for the licensed real estate agent's business operated by the defendants. Thus, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the above money. (2) On November 26, 2009, the plaintiff as the primary cause of the conjunctive claim lent KRW 20 million to the non-party D (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). Since the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan debt to the plaintiff, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the above money.

B. The plaintiff's assertion of the defendants lending the above money to the non-party D, and they did not have concluded a joint and several guarantee contract with the plaintiff.

2. Determination:

A. There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the primary claim, or in full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 3 as well as the overall purport of the arguments, Nonparty D paid to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 each month from November 26, 2009 to October 26, 201, as interest rate of KRW 20,000,000, and the above evidence Nos. 2014 and 59601, which were prepared on February 11, 2015, can be acknowledged as having entered the Plaintiff as the creditor in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors of this case.

According to the above facts, the other party who lent the above 20 million won to the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the non-party D, not the defendant C, and the statement of No. 10 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The evidence alone presented by the Defendant with respect to the conjunctive claim is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the above part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim in this case that the plaintiff changed in exchange for exchange at the trial are all dismissed as it is without merit.

The plaintiff's claim for damages caused by the plaintiff's illegal act due to the exchange change of the lawsuit in the trial.