1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) C is a person who actually operates Defendant, D, and E;

B. C filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015 tea27717 for a payment order seeking KRW 1150 million and delay damages against D Co., Ltd. by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

On June 19, 2015, the judicial assistant officer of the court issued a payment order in accordance with the above request, and the payment order was finalized on July 11, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). C.

On December 2, 2015, the Defendant purchased a Fran 116 square meters in Ansan-si on the same month.

9. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

C Around July 7, 2016, a written agreement (i.e., payment of the amount indicated on the certificate No. 2 of this case and the payment order of this case; hereinafter “instant agreement”) entered as “creditors, obligor D, Defendant Co., Ltd. and E, Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Around July 7, 2016, using the instant agreement, filed an application for provisional seizure against the said land by stealing the Plaintiff’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Witness G's testimony, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 213 billion to C from September 4, 2009 to October 19 of the same year.

The defendant prepared the agreement of this case with the purport that he will bear the guarantee obligation with respect to the above borrowed money.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff according to the instant agreement.

B. The reasons behind the preparation of the instant agreement are as shown in the above facts of recognition, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had drafted the instant agreement with the intent to guarantee the Defendant’s obligation of C. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.