beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. On August 18, 2009, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to lend interest of KRW 30,500,000 to B, which was agreed on December 31, 2009, KRW 518,500 per month, and the due date for payment was to be paid. At that time, the Defendant, the husband of the Plaintiff at the time, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the above loan, or granted the right of representation to B to enter into a joint and several guarantee agreement on the above loan obligation on behalf of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to repay the above loan obligation to the Plaintiff.
2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed. The loan loan certificate of this case No. 1 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") does not conflict with the part of the defendant's seal imprint, but the defendant defense that Eul used the defendant's seal imprint to use the defendant's seal imprint, and considering the whole purport of arguments as to Gap's evidence No. 1 and No. 2-2, Eul prepared the loan certificate of this case using the computer copy program, "joint guarantor" means the defendant's name, resident registration number, and address to enter the defendant's name, resident registration number, and address, and affixed the defendant's seal imprint certificate of this case with the defendant's seal imprint issued by Eul on behalf of the defendant, and it can be recognized that Eul issued the loan certificate of this case with the defendant's seal imprint certificate of this case with the defendant's seal imprint issued by Eul on behalf of the defendant. Thus, the authenticity of Gap No. 2-2 and No. 9-2, Gap evidence No. 10-2, and evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 10 of this case's.
It is not sufficient to recognize that B granted the authority to conclude joint and several guarantee agreements on behalf of the defendant for the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
On the other hand, the plaintiff is the B and the defendant.