2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 28, 2007, the Defendant, who is a credit service provider, lent KRW 9,000,000 to C, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, the due date for payment, August 28, 2008, and the interest rate was 60% per annum.

(b) The column of joint and several sureties of the loan certificate (certificate No. 5) prepared at the time and the receipt (certificate No. 1) shall have the signature and seal in the name of the plaintiff.

C. On December 14, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of loans as stated in the above loan certificate with the Ulsan District Court Yangsan District Court Decision 2007Gau25982, and received the instant decision on performance recommendation. The said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on January 4, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 2-2, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that C voluntarily stated the name of the plaintiff in the loan certificate and receipt, and affixed the seal to the plaintiff's future, and since the plaintiff did not have any joint and several liability, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case against the plaintiff should be denied.

As to this, the defendant asserts that at the time of the loan, the plaintiff had guaranteed the debt of the loan of this case by affixing his seal to the defendant's office directly and affixed to the loan certificate and receipt.

B. We examine the following circumstances: Gap evidence Nos. 12-1, 12-2, 2-3, and the fact-finding results with respect to the Estecom Co., Ltd. by the court of first instance, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings. ① The telephone number presented by the defendant was denied the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff had a direct telephone conversation with the plaintiff on the date of the instant loan, and the telephone number presented by the defendant was not his own. The fact-finding results and the telephone number presented by the defendant on the date of the loan was proved to be the plaintiff himself and the defendant on the date of the loan.