1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) set the Defendant’s husband C with a maturity of KRW 150 million on January 19, 2014; and (b) lent the Defendant’s husband C with a maturity of KRW 50 million at KRW 50 million on a monthly basis and KRW 5 million on interest.

[A] According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the principal debtor of the above loan obligation appears to be "D Co., Ltd. (Representative Director C)". However, the Plaintiff asserted that the principal debtor of the above loan obligation is "C". However, considering the fact that the Defendant does not specifically dispute this issue, and whether the principal debtor of the above loan obligation guaranteed the above loan obligation as seen earlier, the principal debtor of the above loan obligation in this case is "C" as alleged by the Plaintiff. The ground for recognition is without any dispute, and there is no evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant guaranteed C’s above loan repayment obligation, and C does not repay the above loan repayment obligation up to now, so the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 150 million and delay damages.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) that “D representative director C, a representative director of D Co., Ltd., borrowed KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff on July 19, 2013, and the Defendant guaranteed the above loan obligation.”

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above loan certificate as to the part under the Defendant’s name, and thus, it is not possible to use it as evidence in relation to “the Defendant’s guarantee.” The circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff and the remaining evidence alone are insufficient to acknowledge “the Defendant guaranteed the above loan obligation,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was stated on October 29, 2015 at the first date for pleading of the party.