1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant D is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D is dismissed.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 31, 2007, Defendant B borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and on August 5, 2008, Defendant B prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate (Evidence 1-1) with the agreement to pay the Plaintiff KRW 150 million up to December 30, 2008.

B. On January 17, 2009, Defendant C drafted a letter of performance (Evidence A No. 1-2) stating that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 20 million out of the amount agreed upon by Defendant B to the Plaintiff and pay the remainder of KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff as soon as possible.

C. Defendant D and Defendant C are South Korea, and Defendant B is a person of Defendant D’s own punishment.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition 1), Defendant B and Defendant C jointly have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 130 million and delay damages therefor. 2) As to this, Defendant B, and C have assumed all obligations of Defendant B including the above contract deposit obligation around March 2010, the above Defendants asserted that Defendant B did not have the obligation to pay the above contract deposit obligation to the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to recognize that F has taken over the above contract deposit obligation with the sole account of each description of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. On August 5, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant A guaranteed the obligation to pay the above agreed amount because, in the presence of Defendant B at the time of the preparation of the said cash custody certificate (Evidence A No. 1-1), Defendant C guaranteed the obligation to pay the above agreed amount, Defendant D guaranteed the obligation to pay the above agreed amount, since it guaranteed Defendant D’s name, resident registration number, Handphone number and address on the said cash custody certificate with Defendant D’s consent.

However, as evidence consistent with the plaintiff's above argument, Gap evidence 1-1 (cash custody certificate) is written.