A. On April 17, 2018, the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,00 to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”). On the same day, the Defendant was preparing a loan certificate with the content that Non-Party Co., Ltd. and Non-Party D as a joint and several surety.

B. Around July 30, 2018, a loan certificate stating the purport that the Plaintiff is a debtor and the Defendant as the creditor, and that the Plaintiff is a joint and several surety against D’s above loan obligation of KRW 30,000,000 (Evidence A 3; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was prepared, and the debtor’s name was affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression on the back of the Plaintiff’s name.

C. Based on the loan certificate of this case, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the payment order claiming the payment of the joint and several sureties amounting to KRW 30,000,000 (Cheongju District Court 2019j142). On February 22, 2019, the above court issued the payment order with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant and its delayed damages (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion presented that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant amounting to KRW 30,000,000 for the Defendant’s debt owed to D, and therefore, the instant loan certificate is null and void for the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed should be denied. (2) The Plaintiff asked the Defendant to lend money to D having business relations with the Plaintiff on April 2018, and the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 to D on April 17, 2018.

Since then, as the defendant was unable to receive the above loan claims from D, the plaintiff was originally entitled.