The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Since the loan certificate submitted by the Plaintiff against Defendant B (No. 1, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) recognizes the fact that Defendant B prepared by the Plaintiff, the authenticity can be admitted as evidence.

Defendant B asserts that the signature portion is not written by himself, but the authenticity of the petition is recognized only if it is written by the originator according to his intention and the signature or seal is not necessarily required.

Therefore, whether Defendant B’s signature was obtained or not does not affect the recognition of the establishment of a petition.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant Eul borrowed KRW 100,000 from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

In doing so, according to the evidence No. 1, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, around December 16, 2019, promised Defendant B to invalidate the loan certificate of this case, and that the Plaintiff expressed its intent to exempt Defendant B from the debt of the above loan.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B was extinguished by the above declaration of exemption, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B cannot be accepted.

As to this, the plaintiff shall pay 10,000,000 won each year by defendant B.

D. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the invalidity of the loan certificate of this case, despite the fact that the loan certificate of this case was void.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant C with Defendant C as a joint and several surety for Defendant C’s debt owed to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay the above loan.

The argument is asserted.

However, Defendant C’s signature of the instant loan certificate was replaced by Defendant B, and Defendant B was entitled to express his/her intent of guarantee on behalf of Defendant C.

Since there is no evidence to determine the person, the validity of the above guarantee agreement does not extend to the defendant C (the Civil Code).