1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff lent 100 million won to C on February 21, 2011. At that time, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant guaranteed C’s above loan obligations, and sought payment of the said money and damages for delay.

The defendant's guarantee portion among the evidence No. 1 (Evidence) cannot be used as evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion for the following reasons.

Of the above loan certificates, the defendant did not know about the seal affixed to the defendant's name and affixed the seal to the above loan certificate, and there is no evidence to prove that there is no fact.

According to the statements in Eul 1 through 3 and the testimony of Eul, it can be recognized that C, which was the defendant's former spouse, has affixed the seal of the defendant on the above loan certificate.

Therefore, in order to use the guaranteed portion of the above loan certificate as evidence, the plaintiff who is the presenter must prove that C affixed the seal of the defendant with a legitimate title delegated by the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 Decided April 8, 2003), and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant guaranteed the obligation of C in addition to the above evidence No. 1.

Rather, according to the testimony of the above C, the defendant's guarantee portion out of the above loan certificate is only recognized as written by C at will.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim from another premise without any need to examine, and it is so difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim, and it is so decided as per Disposition.