1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that around June 2009, the defendant and C have the obligation to pay the construction cost to D, and that on August 10, 2009, they lent KRW 100,000 by requesting the lending of KRW 100,000 to D, and thereafter, they lent KRW 20,000,000 in a manner of depositing into D's passbook, E, and thereafter, around October 3, 2010, the plaintiff claimed that the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 has not been paid after receiving reimbursement of KRW 50,000,000.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment No. 1, it seems that it is the F.C. representative.

G (State) On August 10, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a receipt to the effect that “a person shall receive KRW 100,000,000 as the borrowed amount of construction cost for ten households of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I apartment complex” in the name of H and nine (9) persons, but the above fact of recognition alone alone lent money to the Defendant on August 10, 2009.

The plaintiff's claim is not reasonable because it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent money to C and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it ( even if the plaintiff's statement in this court is based on the plaintiff's statement, the defendant explicitly borrowed money or jointly and severally guaranteed it, but the defendant was the spouse of C and was frequently involved in the office, and C has been responsible for using the defendant's account).

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