1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff, as to the assertion of joint and several sureties, borrowed money from the defendant's EL branch card, and the defendant, on December 28, 2002, jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of A, and A, as of June 18, 2007, did not pay the principal amount of KRW 30,950,678, overdue interest of KRW 31,190,547, and the overdue interest of KRW 62,141,225. The defendant, a joint and several sureties, is jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid loan to the plaintiff who acquired the above loan obligation from the EL branch card.

On the other hand, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which corresponds to the plaintiff's argument that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt borrowed from A's EL Card, cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to prove the plaintiff's assertion.

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

B. The plaintiff asserts that even if the defendant did not directly and severally guarantee the debt of A as above, the defendant is liable to act as an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act by indicating the granting of the power to act as to joint and several sureties. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the unpaid loan to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant attached a certificate of representation to the joint and several surety for the debt borrowed from the EL card to A. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.