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

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

A. On November 8, 2012, A, the Defendant’s children, agreed to borrow KRW 94,000,000 from the Plaintiff to purchase construction machinery equipment at the rate of 10.3% per annum, overdue interest rate of 24%, and method of repayment at the rate of principal and interest equal each 60 months after the three-month grace period.

B. At the time of the above loan, A submitted to the Plaintiff a loan application with the Defendant’s signature and seal affixed to the joint and several surety column (Evidence A) and the Defendant’s personal seal impression issued by the Defendant himself. On November 8, 2012, the employee in charge of the Plaintiff called to the Defendant and explained the details of the loan to the Defendant and confirmed whether the Defendant was jointly and severally guaranteed.

C. A loses the benefit of time due to its failure to repay the above loans properly. The above loan obligations remain in KRW 24,651,185, interest5, interest5, 5,642, delay damages, KRW 9,471,259, and KRW 39,652,086 as of June 18, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the whole purport of pleading, and the whole purport of pleading [the defendant asserts that the defendant's signature in the column of joint and several surety Gap's loan No. 1 was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the record of confirmation of the intention of joint and several surety (Evidence No. 14) by telephone to the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant responded that the defendant prepared the above loan application, and therefore the grounds for objection against

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is a joint and several surety and is jointly and severally liable with the principal obligor A to repay the debt, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1 of this case asserted that the contract of this case is null and void since the defendant was old at the time of the contract of this case and did not have normal judgment ability due to the symptoms of Albuses.

According to each description of evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 14.