1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) determined and lent KRW 21 million to the net C at the time of repayment two months after the due date; and (b) asserted that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation on the same date; and (c) sought the payment of the said loan.

The submission of documents shall be the original, and the submission of documents shall not be a simple copy, but shall be illegal as a matter of principle because there is no guarantee of accuracy. Thus, if there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and there is an objection against the other party against the representation of the original, a copy shall not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall not be an independent documentary evidence, or, on the other hand, it shall not be deemed that the original has been submitted by the independent documentary evidence. In this case, there is no evidence that there is a copy, such as the original, by evidence, and unless it is recognized that the original has been duly established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96403, Feb. 25, 2010). Evidence No. 2 (A) is a copy, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of such original as to the existence of such original (a copy of the letter of guarantee). Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the said original, and there is no evidence to support the establishment of the said original (a copy of the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s delivery of a copy). No. 1 cannot be used as evidence. The statement of evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.