1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 15 million to Defendant A with facility funds, and Defendant A paid the amount of KRW 100,000 per month from April 25, 2008 to June 25, 2009, in installments, and the interest rate for delay shall be set at 30%, and the interest rate for delay shall be set at 30%, and Defendant B’s certificate of facility loan (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) was drawn up around March 208.

B. The Plaintiff remitted each of the KRW 3 million to Defendant A’s account on March 13, 2008, and KRW 12 million on March 26, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant A is the principal debtor, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the principal amount of the outstanding loan and the delayed payment amount of KRW 13.5 million out of the loan as a joint and several surety.

B. We examine whether the judgment on the claim against the defendant A and the defendant A entered into a monetary loan contract.

First, in the case of the loan certificate of this case (Evidence A 3), which is evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion, according to the statement No. 2 and the result of the written appraisal by appraiser E, since the entry of personal information, such as the defendant's name, is not written by the defendant A, but it is recognized that the following stamp image is not by the defendant's seal imprint, the authenticity cannot be admitted as evidence.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that only the documents in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7 are concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant A, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is without merit.

Even if a monetary loan contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the loan obligations pursuant to the loan certificate of this case constituted a commercial obligation with its operating funds even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion.