1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding a new argument or adding a judgment on a new argument in the defendant's trial, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Supplementary or added parts]

A. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the witness D is deemed to be a witness D of the court of first instance, and the 3rd page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “only the description of the evidence No. 3” of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “A” with each description of the evidence No. 3 and No. 6, and testimony of the witness E of the court of first instance.”

B. On the fourth and sixth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following contents are added.

In addition, the witness E of the political party stated in the trial court that “I had no guarantee story, I had several instances of talking that I will be responsible for and repaid. I would have to do so,” and “I would have no acceptance car,”” [the part of the judgment on a new argument] because the plaintiff had jointly acquired the loan obligations of the non-party company, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant has the obligation to pay the loan obligations to the plaintiff.

In light of the circumstances mentioned in Paragraph 2-B above, and there is no motive or reason for the Defendant to concurrently accept the loan obligations of the non-party company, documents that the Defendant agreed to concurrently take over the non-party company’s loan obligations, and the witness E of the party hearing stated to the effect that “the Defendant had made several statements to the effect that he would have been responsible and repaid” in the trial and stated to the effect that “the Defendant could not have heard that he would have assumed the obligation,” the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had jointly assumed the obligation of the non-party company’s loan obligations, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.