beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff loaned 10,00,00 won to C on March 16, 2010; September 18, 2010; March 15, 2012; May 27, 2013; and July 1, 2013; and the Plaintiff lent 10,000,000 won to C on September 18, 2010; the Plaintiff’s repayment period of KRW 10,000,00 that the Plaintiff lent to C on September 18, 2012 does not conflict between the parties; or the Plaintiff’s submission of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8; and evidence No. 4-2, No. 1, 2, 2, 5-1, and 5-1; and the testimony and testimony of each of the witnesses of the court as a whole may be acknowledged pursuant to the purport of the entire pleadings and pleadings.
B. The defendant's guarantee Gap evidence No. 1 (the certificate No. 1) (the defendant's name and the resident's number are the defendant's own name and the fact that the defendant's direct statement in the certificate No. 1) is presumed to have been duly established, and the above certificate of loan is presumed to have been actually established. The defendant asserted that the above certificate of loan was altered, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the above certificate of loan was altered merely because the payment period and the date of preparation are changed, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.). According to the witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of pleading in this court, the defendant guaranteed the defendant's loan obligations against the plaintiff on September 18, 2010 (hereinafter "loan obligations of this case").
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant guaranteed C’s loan obligations on March 16, 2010. However, in light of the following circumstances, which may be recognized by the statement in subparagraph 1, namely, the date of preparation of the loan certificate and the year of maturity, which appears to have been corrected, but the statement in subparagraph 10 alone appears to have been made from the beginning, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant guaranteed C’s loan obligations on March 16, 2010, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
However, on March 16, 2010