1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional judgment;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the principal obligor of the loan claim based on the instant judgment is C, and the Plaintiff is the guarantor of the above loan obligation, and C paid the Defendant KRW 10 million on December 4, 2009 and was exempted from the remainder of the obligation from the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation also extinguished. Therefore, the instant judgment should not be allowed.

B. In full view of the purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-2, and 4, Gap evidence No. 6-1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 6-2, testimony of witness of the court of first instance, and witness D, the defendant made an endorsement of the above promissory note as the guarantee of the plaintiff around May 1998. The plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 10 million at a discount from the defendant, and the plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 34.2 million to Eul. The plaintiff's default on payment of promissory note No. 3,42 million to the defendant around Feb. 1, 1999. The plaintiff prepared a cash certificate with the purport that the above cash custody was made by the defendant's intimidation, but it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's testimony was made more than 10,000 won than 10,000 won and 200,000 won to the plaintiff as of April 30, 1999.