1. The Plaintiff’s part of the lawsuit against Defendant Multi-partnership Loan is dismissed.

2...

1. Summary of the case and the proceedings

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was urged to perform the guaranteed obligation even if he/she did not jointly and severally guarantee the loan obligation of the workplace rent, and also claims consolation money due to confirmation of the non-existence of the guaranteed obligation and illegal collection.

B. The defendants and the succeeding intervenors claim the establishment of joint and several sureties by receiving the plaintiff's joint and several sureties contract by mail, submitting as evidence the recording file confirming the intent of joint and several sureties by telephone

Some Defendants and successors are seeking the performance of the guaranteed obligation as a counterclaim.

The Savings Bank for the defendant corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Co., Ltd.") filed a separate claim for the performance of joint and several sureties with the Gwangju District Court, but the case was transferred to this court, and it was combined as a counterclaim.

C. The issue is whether the Plaintiff is a joint and several surety.

원고가 연대보증계약서의 진정성립을 부인하여 연대보증 여부를 확인한 통화 내용 녹음파일에 대한 성문(聲紋, 목소리) 감정 등을 시행하였다.

2. Of the principal lawsuit, the part on the confirmation of the existence of a debt against Defendant Multi-partnership Loan

A. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the absence of an obligation listed in the [Attachment 1] No. 1 against the above Defendant.

B. The record reveals that the above Defendant transferred all of the Plaintiff-related claims to the succeeding intervenor’s new source loan.

Although the assignee of the claim did not withdraw from the lawsuit of this case even though the above defendant did not participate in the lawsuit of this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's seeking confirmation of existence of the obligation against the previous creditor does not have any benefit of confirmation immediately, as long as the claim of the plaintiff was transferred to the New

C. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the above Defendant on the confirmation of existence of a debt is unlawful.

3. As to a claim for confirmation of existence of the remainder of the principal lawsuit and a counterclaim

A. The Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant Multi-partnership Loan.