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

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

1. Basic facts - The defendant was aware of his husband and wife C and D with the plaintiff's introduction, and around June 29, 2005, lent KRW 50 million to D, and was set up a collateral security amount of KRW 65 million as to the land D owned (hereinafter the land in this case).

- After that, around July 6, 2006, the defendant adjusted the above loan claims against D as a total of 63.5 million won between C and C, and agreed that C becomes a debtor against this, the notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed as stated in paragraph (1) of the claim to the friendly General Law Firm (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case"). This is written as a notarial deed of monetary loan, the amount of claim is KRW 63.5 million, and the creditor, the debtor, the debtor, the joint guarantor, and the debtor, the debtor, the debtor, and the joint guarantor on July 6, 2009, respectively, and the entrustment of the debtor and the joint guarantor was represented by the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2's evidence 1, Gap 3-2, Eul 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff did not have joint and several sureties's above loan debt against the defendant, nor did he participated in the preparation of the notarial deed of this case.

However, during the period from April 2003 to July 27, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 85 million to D in total, and cancelled the establishment of a first-class collateral security right on D’s land and F’s land for the purpose of securing the above loan claims. However, the Plaintiff, who is a laf, issued the Plaintiff’s seal impression certificate and a certificate of seal impression with the Defendant at the time of the above registration. The Defendant entrusted the preparation of the instant notarial deed by using it.

(2) Even if the instant notarial deed is valid, the Defendant is a bond company, and C is each merchant as a seller of cosmetics, etc., and the Defendant’s above loan claim against C was extinguished upon the completion of the commercial prescription on July 6, 2014, when five years have passed since the due date for payment. In accordance with the principle of non-existence.