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.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment on the plaintiff's assertion as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. (i) On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion B on behalf of the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant, is liable to the Plaintiff for payment of the agreed amount equivalent to KRW 65 million to the Plaintiff, as the joint and several surety (hereinafter “instant joint and several surety”). As such, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 65 million and damages for delay.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression attached to the loan certificate of this case (No. 1, Apr. 8, 2013) and the power of attorney (No. 2, 2013) was issued on behalf of the Defendant on May 24, 2013 on the part of the Defendant; (b) the Plaintiff or an individual, at the time when the loan certificate of this case was issued by the Plaintiff or an individual, did not have any objective data to prove that the Defendant directly verified the Defendant’s intent of joint and several sureties at the time when the loan certificate of this case was issued by the Plaintiff or an individual, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant granted the right of attorney to conclude the contract of this case on the joint and several sureties; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. (i) Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion B did not receive a legitimate authority from the Defendant to conclude the instant joint and several surety contract, the Plaintiff was the husband of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff had the Defendant’s seal impression, seal impression, etc., and thus, there was justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff was the authority to conclude the instant joint and several surety contract.