1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 15, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant B at an annual interest rate of 30%, and due date of payment on September 14, 2010. Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s above loan obligation.

On June 15, 2010, the Defendants drafted a loan certificate to the Plaintiff.

On December 7, 2010, when Defendant B did not pay the borrowed money even after the due date, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant B to pay the borrowed money to Defendant B or to have the borrowed money notarized, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to have the borrowed money notarized.

Defendant B demanded the Plaintiff to borrow additional KRW 2,000,000 from the notarial office to grant notarial services to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B refused this.

B. The defendants Gap evidence No. 1 (Evidence) did not lend money to the plaintiff, and it is a document with the tear and tear of defendant Eul, which has no effect since it was already destroyed.

2. Although the loan certificate was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Defendant B’s tear was teared, and Defendant B’s evidence No. 1 (the car certificate) collected and led to the Plaintiff’s recovery of teared sign, and there is no dispute between the parties. However, there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff raised an objection against the tearing of the loan certificate or demanded the Plaintiff to prepare again the loan certificate. In light of the above, Defendant A’s evidence No. 1 (the car certificate), which led to the Plaintiff’s arbitrary recovery of teared light, cannot be used as evidence.

Although the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not conflict between the parties to the notarial office in order to conduct notarial acts as to the loan certificate, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant B on June 15, 2010, considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the above notarial office. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff.