On June 21, 2013, the defendant extended a loan to B by setting 5 million won at the interest rate of 39% per annum.

B on February 10, 2015, 4,853,196 won out of the principal of the loan is not repaid.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the claim of this lawsuit, the entries in Gap 1 and 2, and Eul 1, as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, at the time when the defendant loaned KRW 5 million to Eul on June 21, 2013, the plaintiff's name was entered in the column for joint and several liability and the copy of the contract for joint and several liability signed next thereto was submitted to the defendant. The defendant sent a telephone to the plaintiff to verify the authenticity of the copy of the above joint and several liability contract, and the plaintiff confirmed the intention of joint and several liability. The plaintiff responded to the purport that the copy of the contract for joint and several liability was entered in the telephone communication at that time and signed. The defendant expressed his intention of joint and several liability. The defendant was aware that the plaintiff expressed his intention of joint and several liability and carried out a loan to Eul. After that, the defendant requested the plaintiff to prepare the original copy of the joint and several liability contract and sent it by mail to the plaintiff, the plaintiff refused to sign the contract, but the plaintiff's name and signature written by the plaintiff.

B. According to Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Dominant Suretys, a guarantee shall take effect in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff did not express to the defendant in writing the intent of joint and several sureties for the principal and interest obligation of B, and thus the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid.

On May 2012, the defendant asserted that a loan was executed by the plaintiff around 2012.6.