1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this case are as follows: Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 7-1 through 5, Gap evidence No. 8-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 1 through 9-2, Gap evidence No. 1, and Gap evidence No. 1, No. 188,768 additionally presented at the court of first instance to "D and defendant"; "No. 37,00,000 won" in No. 7 and No. 8 are as "No. 52,475,164 won"; "No. 235,963,932 won" in No. 7 and No. 7 and No. 111 are as follows; and it is difficult to acknowledge the additional evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 7-1 through No. 5, Gap evidence No. 8-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 9-2, Gap's evidence No. 1, 108-1, and No.2.

2. Additional determination

A. In addition to the primary claim, as long as there is no evidence that the Defendant guaranteed or accepted the loan obligation, even if the Plaintiff had a loan obligation against J or C, not a juristic person, even if it is not a juristic person, the Plaintiff’s assertion was start to the effect that there is no reason.

B. As to the conjunctive claim added at the trial at the trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, on June 15, 2016, issued and delivered a certificate of borrowing (Evidence No. 6) causing KRW 170,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and at least acquired or approved the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff related to D’s above amount, but the said certificate is merely J and C (B), which are not the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove the above assertion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal and the claim added as preliminary in the court of first instance are dismissed as it is without merit.