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

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

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7, 9 through 12 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), and the whole purport of the arguments.

1) C Overhead Complex Rebuilding Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as “overhead Housing Association”)

) The main complex building located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu D (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).

E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) is the owner of the

B) On July 30, 202, F, G, and H agreed to lend KRW 300 million in total to E as the price for the construction of the instant building between E and F, G, and H, and agreed to receive KRW 470 million on June 8, 2003.

In addition, in order to secure the above loan claims, the non-party union prepared a sales contract with F, G, and H on the second floor of the building of this case stating that "the sales contract shall be null and void if the non-party union fully pays 300 million won and 470 million won is paid by June 8, 2003."

3) On August 5, 2002, the Plaintiff, who was the head of the non-party partnership, the head of the non-party partnership, and the director of the non-party partnership, was a director of the non-party partnership, the Plaintiff’s loan obligations worth KRW 470 million to EF, G, and H (hereinafter “the instant loan obligations”).

(b) the guarantee (hereinafter referred to as the "guarantee of this case")

As a result, on August 6, 2002, F, G, and H lent KRW 100 million each to E, which is the following day. 4) F, G filed a lawsuit against the non-party union, I, and the Plaintiff, the guarantor of the non-party union, I, and the Plaintiff, as Seoul Southern District Court 2010Gahap8182.

On November 23, 2010, the court below, on the ground that this case’s loan obligation, which is the principal obligation, constitutes a commercial activity, and thus, appeals against the non-party partnership, I, and Plaintiff.