1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal of a part of the judgment of the court of

The third half of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant C, who is jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 416 of the Civil Act, has the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription since the plaintiff requested the performance of the obligation to the defendant B prior to the expiration of the prescription period. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff requested the performance of the loan 10 million won prior to the submission of the application for the change of the claim and the cause of the claim, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit) of the judgment of the first instance, "The fourth thirteen to nine of the fourth 13 to nine of the judgment of the first instance, "The plaintiff's claim in this part is correct)."

(2) In full view of the following facts: (a) no dispute exists between the parties that the following stamp image of Defendant C’s name, which is indicated in the loan certificate Nos. 1 and 1 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”); (b) the court of first instance acknowledged as the result of the personal examination of the Plaintiff and the Defendant B; (c) the name of the debtor and the joint guarantor in the loan certificate of this case appears to have been prepared by one person; (b) the certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence No. 2-2) was issued by the Plaintiff at the time of preparation of the loan certificate of this case; (c) the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant C participated in the loan certificate of this case; (d) the Plaintiff was unable to memory the signature of Defendant C, which falls under the important part of the specific circumstances at the time of preparation of the loan certificate of this case; and (e) the fact that Defendant B affixed the name of the Defendant C on the loan certificate of this case.