1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff got married on September 3, 2013 while living together with D and D from around 2007.

B. A loan certificate in the name of D and Plaintiff (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) was drafted on March 14, 2014, stating that “D borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant at an annual interest rate of 30 million, and September 30, 2017 as of the date of maturity for payment, and that “D shall jointly and severally and severally guarantee the guaranteed obligation by setting the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation and the guarantee period of D on September 30, 2027.”

C. On March 14, 2014, D, as the debtor himself/herself and the plaintiff's agent, commissioned a notary public to prepare a notarial deed in C at a law firm, and signed a notarial deed in 2014 under Article 357 of D (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed in this case"), stating that "the defendant set the amount of KRW 200 million stated in D as stated in the loan certificate in this case by 30% per annum, the due date on September 30, 2017, and the due date on September 30, 2017, the plaintiff jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the debt under this contract by setting the maximum amount of the guaranteed obligation, the guarantee period of the guaranteed obligation, and if D and the plaintiff fail to perform their obligation under this contract, the notarial deed in this case accompanied by the loan certificate in this case was prepared as a notarial deed (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deed").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff did not confer a power of attorney to commission D to prepare the notarial deed of this case, D has forged power of attorney using the Plaintiff’s seal impression and entrusted D with the preparation of the notarial deed of this case as the Plaintiff’s agent qualification, the notarial deed of this case is null and void by commission of unauthorized Representative, and even if not, it does not so.

Even if D borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant or the Plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed, the Defendant’s loan claims do not exist on the Notarial Deed of this case.