1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2009, at the Plaintiff’s request on November 16, 2009, Defendant C as the borrower of Defendant B and Defendant C as the guarantor, and the amount borrowed is KRW 2.5 million, KRW 45 million, KRW 34 million, and KRW A’s cash custody certificate, KRW 1-3,000, KRW 34 million, respectively.

B drafted and proposed to the Plaintiff.

B. Among each of the cash custody certificates of this case, the cash custody certificate which causes 2.5 million won of the borrowed amount does not indicate the due date for payment, and the cash custody certificate which causes 45 million won of the borrowed amount was established on December 30, 2009; the cash custody certificate which causes 34 million won of the borrowed amount was established on December 30, 2009; the collateral security right of KRW 100 million for the house, dry field, and garage.

‘The purpose of ‘' is to be stated additionally.

The period of reimbursement is indicated as March 30, 2010. C. Defendant B, on November 16, 2009, set up a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million against the Plaintiff with respect to the E large-scale 307 square meters and its ground buildings in Seogpo-si, Seopo-si on November 16, 2009. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including those with a serial number).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The grounds for this part of the assertion by the parties are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. (1) Whether the obligation to borrow money is established or not. Defendant B borrowed KRW 34 million from the Plaintiff as of March 30, 2010 with the maturity of 34 million from the Plaintiff as of March 30, 2010. The Defendant C guaranteed the payment of the above obligation to the Plaintiff by Defendant C does not have any dispute between the parties. (2) The reason why this part of the cash custody certificate, which caused 2.5 million won of the borrowed money, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8 through 5, 16). Therefore, this part of this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3) The Plaintiff, as in the case of the existing transaction, is Defendant B, as in the part of cash custody equivalent to KRW 45 million.