1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On August 18, 1997, C lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s husband D, and received a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant, and around 2005, C lent KRW 1.9 million to the Defendant and received a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant.

B. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired a loan claim of KRW 11.9 million against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan claim”) and a loan claim of KRW 20 million against D, and was delegated by C with the authority to notify the transfer.

On the same day, the plaintiff sent to the defendant a letter of credit acceptance contract and a notice of credit acceptance. However, on July 25, 2015, the plaintiff was returned.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above transfer money of KRW 11.9 million and the above bond acquisition agreement and the notice of the acceptance of the claim, etc. from the day after the return of the above transfer money.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the description of No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant would pay C KRW 500,000,000 as the monthly circumstances.

“The fact that the Defendant prepared a loan certificate, and the fact that the Defendant divorced from D around 2008 is recognized. However, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant borrowed KRW 11.9 million from C in 2005 and prepared the above loan certificate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 2, C lent KRW 20 million to D who was the Defendant’s husband at the time of August 18, 1997, and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received the above loan certificate (Evidence 1) from the Plaintiff to guarantee part of the above debt amount of D around 2003. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on different premise is without merit. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s above assertion was obtained from the Defendant’s debt guarantee against D in 2005, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that C acquired the Defendant’s debt guarantee against C.