1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2006, Defendant B drafted a loan certificate as of September 5, 2006, stating that he borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff. At the end of the above loan certificate, Defendant B’s name and signature as an obligor is signed and sealed as a joint and several surety, and Defendant C and D’s name and seal as a joint and several surety are affixed thereto.

[A. (Evidence No. 1) and hereinafter the above loan certificate]. B.

On February 27, 2007, Defendant B, who borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff, prepared a certificate of borrowing on February 27, 2007. At the end of the above certificate of borrowing, Defendant B’s name and seal as the obligor, and Defendant C and D’s name as the obligor jointly and severally liable under the above certificate of borrowing.

[A. 2(Evidence). hereinafter the above loan certificate shall be referred to as "the second loan certificate".

On February 2, 2008, the statement that Defendant B borrowed five million won from the Plaintiff was prepared by the Plaintiff, and the name and signature of Defendant B as the obligor at the end of the above loan certificate was written by the name and signature of Defendant C and D as the obligor jointly and severally liable.

【A No. 3 (Evidence). hereinafter the above loan certificate is referred to as “the third loan certificate”). D.

Defendant C and D are married, and Defendant B are children of the above Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent to Defendant B a total of KRW 40 million based on the loan certificates Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s debt. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 40 million against the Defendants.

B. 1) Determination 1) There is no dispute between the parties as to the authenticity of the evidence No. 1, and according to the record, the plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the defendant B on September 5, 2006, and the defendant C and D can recognize the fact that the defendant C and D stand joint and several sureties. 2) Of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, there is dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the authenticity of the part of the name and seal or signature.