A. Between 2006 and 2007, C borrowed approximately KRW 75 million from D with the Plaintiff’s husband, and on May 14, 2007, creditors “D” and “C” were common. ① KRW 50,000,000, the due date for repayment, ② KRW 25,000,000, and the due date for repayment, respectively, set up and delivered to D the two copies of the loan stipulated under each of the subparagraphs as of December 2, 2007.

Of these, the name and the signature of the Defendant is affixed to the following parts of the borrower C’s name and seal on the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

B. D The Plaintiff died on July 13, 201, and as the wife of D (hereinafter “the deceased”), the Plaintiff’s wife against C.

The loan credit stated in the subsection (hereinafter “the loan credit of this case”) was solely inherited by agreement division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant’s name and signature are indicated on the side of the Defendant’s signature, which is a joint and several surety under the loan certificate of this case (A). As such, the authenticity of the relevant document is presumed to have been established, as there is no dispute over the part of the Defendant’s signature (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). If the authenticity of a disposal document, such as the loan certificate of this case, is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the content of the statement, the existence of a legal act in question must be recognized. In order to deny it, there is a clear explanation of the grounds acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da81957, Jan. 27, 201). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the

B. As to this, the Defendant stated on the loan certificate of this case the name of his own pen and signed is not the intention of joint and several sureties, but the deceased’s 50 million won at the time and the Defendant’s 30 million won each leased to C, with the purport of confirming the amount of the deceased’s lending.