1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On July 29, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around October 30, 2010, the Defendant borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendant’s maturity at KRW 2% per annum; and (b) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendant’s maturity.

Under the condition that the Plaintiff paid 20 million won out of the above loan debt and paid 15 million won to the Plaintiff, the Defendant arbitrarily prepared a joint and several surety and a comprehensive contract for the guarantee of contract on January 10, 201 with the principal amount of KRW 21,400,000,000, while the Defendant arbitrarily paid 20 million and paid 15 million interest.

Therefore, as of January 10, 201, the actual obligation of the Plaintiff to the Defendant was limited to KRW 15 million.

Since then, the Plaintiff, in the manner that the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from C, between the Defendant and the Seoul who operates the Seoul Hall, and the Plaintiff agreed that the repayment shall be made by the Plaintiff, paid additional KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 35 million under a monetary loan contract dated July 29, 2010 against the Defendant is nonexistent, and there is no part of the obligation exceeding KRW 5 million among the obligation under a joint and several surety and a comprehensive collateral guarantee contract as of January 10, 201.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, it may be acknowledged that the pawn contract exists to the effect that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 35 million from the defendant on July 29, 2010 with the maturity of October 30, 2010 and interest of KRW 2,5 million per annum. The plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan from the defendant on January 10, 201 to the effect that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 21.4 million from the defendant on May 10, 2011 with the maturity of KRW 31.4 million from the defendant on May 10, 201, and C lent KRW 15 million to the defendant on August 3, 2011. However, it is insufficient to deem that the ground for the plaintiff's claim is proved only by the above recognition fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the ground for the plaintiff's claim.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.