1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 39 million to B, the Defendant’s wife, as business funds for investment in real estate, such as resale of the right of sale in lots, to KRW 5 million, KRW 5 million on July 5, 2015, KRW 5 million on July 6, 2015, KRW 50 million on December 25, 2015, KRW 40 million on December 10, 2015, KRW 174.5 million on May 7, 2016, and KRW 45 million on the Plaintiff’s debt, KRW 130 million on December 10, 2015, and KRW 15 million on May 7, 2016, KRW 200,000 on the remainder due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay only KRW 45 million.

B. B, on June 10, 2016, additionally borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff agreed to borrow a total of KRW 150 million with interest rate of KRW 130 million on a monthly basis and December 10, 2016, with the maturity of KRW 20 million, and agreed to borrow a loan with the Plaintiff as of KRW 150 million, and the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of borrowing the above details. At this time, B signed the Defendant’s signature on the her name and sealed the Defendant’s seal impression.

(hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff, first of all, as to whether the Plaintiff had power to prepare the instant loan certificate against B, issued to B a proxy certificate, seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, and identification card in the name of the Defendant. As to the preparation of the instant loan certificate, B was authorized to prepare the instant loan certificate on behalf of the Defendant at the time, and accordingly, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to repay the loan amount to the Plaintiff.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 6, the fact that Eul had the defendant's seal imprint, certificate of personal seal impression, passport, etc. at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate of this case is recognized (the plaintiff asserted that Eul had the power of attorney under the defendant's name, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). This fact alone is sufficient for the plaintiff to the plaintiff Eul.