Accordingly, the part against which only the plaintiff appealed to the whole claim for principal and the damages for delay (the plaintiff appealed to the part against B of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was withdrawn). The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above appeal part among the plaintiff's claims against the defendant.

2. Basic facts

A. Each agreement in which the Plaintiff’s creditors, B, the debtor, the Defendant, and B’s co-sureties, each of whom is the same as B’s spouse, and the Plaintiff’s loans of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant agreement”) were written on December 19, 2015.

The seals and seals of the plaintiff, B, and the defendant are affixed to the agreement of this case.

B. On December 19, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1 billion a loan granted under the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) in which B was the representative director.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statement in Gap's 1 (this case's agreement, the defendant's statement to the effect that it is a forged document by misappropriation of his own seal, but it is not justified as follows), 2 and 6 evidence (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the personal examination in the court of first instance as to Eul

3. The assertion and judgment

A. On December 19, 2005, at the time when B borrowed KRW 1 billion from the Plaintiff on December 19, 2005, the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

Even if the defendant puts the seal of the defendant in the agreement of this case as the defendant's argument, the defendant is between the couple B and the couple, the defendant found the plaintiff together with the plaintiff and asked the loan of KRW 1 billion, and the defendant delivered the seal, passbook, etc. to B.