1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. C received respectively from the Plaintiff to the account in his/her name, KRW 9.6 million on April 18, 2014, KRW 1.6 million on June 23, 2014, and KRW 1.6 million on June 23, 2014, and KRW 7.6 million on the 24th of the same month, respectively.

B. The defendant is the husband of C.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Upon C’s request, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 25 million to C, and C confirmed that the unpaid balance on February 18, 2016 was KRW 15 million and agreed to the Plaintiff that C would repay that balance until February 25, 2016. The Defendant provided joint and several sureties’s debt to C (hereinafter “instant joint and several sureties agreement”).

Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above KRW 15 million and its delay damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to the joint and several guarantee agreement of this case. 2) Even if the joint and several guarantee agreement of this case is not recognized, C borrowed money from the Plaintiff to use it as living expenses, etc. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 15 million and its delay damages in accordance with the ordinary contract of household affairs under Article 832 of the Civil Act.

B. 1) Determination 1) In the event that the seal imprint affixed to the statement on the assertion regarding the joint and several liability agreement of this case is reproduced by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is actually presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was prepared, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been created, but the above presumption is broken if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person in whose name the document was prepared, and thus, the person in whose

Supreme Court Decision 209No. 24, 2009