1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to C with the maturity on March 27, 2006 and the interest rate of KRW 3% per month, respectively. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation against the Plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff received 35 million won out of the above loans, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining loans to the Defendant (=10 million won - 35 million won), interest and delay damages.

2. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, although the defendant stated that the above loan obligation against the plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed by the defendant, the defendant denies the above joint and several liability, the defendant asserted that D, who was living together with the defendant at the time of the rejection of the above joint and several liability, arbitrarily recorded as the joint and several liability column of the above loan certificate as if the defendant had been jointly and severally guaranteed, and then stolen the defendant's seal

The stamp image affixed on the column for joint and several sureties A’s certificate No. 1 (certificate of seal impression) shall be deemed to correspond to the stamp image of Gap’s certificate No. 2 (certificate of seal impression). However, the above certificate of seal impression is issued not by the defendant himself but by proxy, and is issued on February 28, 2006, which is about two months after the date of preparation of the above certificate of loan money, and it is insufficient to recognize the authenticity of Gap’s certificate No. 1 (certificate of seal impression) merely with the statement of No. 2 (certificate of seal impression), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment of the petition.

In addition, although Gap evidence Nos. 5 (written confirmation of facts) that seems consistent with the plaintiff's above assertion, it is insufficient to prove the defendant's joint and several surety act because the author of the written confirmation of facts is Eul who is the plaintiff's husband and is also the attorney, and the contents are not the defendant's direct and several surety or delegation of the right of joint and several surety.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s loan of this case was dried to F, a person of the Defendant or the Defendant’s Jeon Nam through D.