1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion had a loan claim of KRW 10 million against C.

Since the Defendant promised to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff on August 17, 2016 and pay KRW 10 million up to September 16, 2016, the Defendant is liable to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid the above KRW 10 million on behalf of C, subject to the submission of the written agreement in a criminal case with respect to C.

However, the defendant submitted a written agreement in accordance with the agreement, but declared his/her intention to withdraw the written agreement on the next day to the full bench, and the criminal judgment with respect to C was sentenced to no agreement.

Then, the defendant requested the return of the written agreement to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not comply with the promise.

2. Determination

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant, on August 17, 2016, prepared and delivered a written agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement in this case"), stating that "B (the defendant) shall be liable to the debtor C by receiving a daily amount of KRW 10 million from the debtor C and shall not be liable to him/her until September 16, 2016, and his/her agent B (the defendant) shall be liable if he/she has failed to repay the amount."

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, since the contents of the instant agreement are deemed to be invalid in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the contents of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 through 4.

(1) On June 1, 2016, C filed an appeal with the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced 6 months of imprisonment on the ground that C embezzled eight million won of the collected money upon request of the Plaintiff for the collection of claims without returning it to the Plaintiff.

(2) The appellate court requested the Plaintiff and the Defendant to visit the Seoul detention center together. The Plaintiff and the Defendant first continued to appear on August 17, 2016.

The defendant shall request of C.