1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Around August 19, 201, the Plaintiff’s assertion C lent KRW 30 million to D for business purposes, and the Defendant, the wife of D, jointly and severally guaranteed D’s above loan obligations on the same day. Since the Plaintiff acquired the above joint and several surety obligation against the Defendant from C on May 7, 2015, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. Around August 19, 201, the fact that C lent KRW 30 million to D (Death, March 18, 2015), which was the husband of the Plaintiff at the time of the lease, to the use of the business fund, is either a dispute between the parties or may be recognized according to the purport of part of the evidence No. 1-3 (the part on which the seal of D’s seal is affixed) and all pleadings.

B. Whether part of No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3 (the part on which the defendant's seal is affixed) which corresponds to the defendant's joint and several guarantee of D's above loan obligation at the time may be used as evidence, and there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image on the defendant's name and the defendant's name attached to No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3 is based on the defendant's seal, but there is no dispute between the parties that the person whose seal is affixed to the defendant's name and the defendant's name attached to No. 1-3 of the evidence No.

A evidence No. 3, which corresponds to the fact that the defendant, at the time, has accepted the act of affixing the seals of D, is difficult to believe as it is, and the testimony of the witness of the trial party C is insufficient to recognize that the defendant ratified the act of affixing the seals of D on the sole basis of the evidence No. 1-4, and there is no other evidence.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that D’s act of borrowing business funds constitutes a juristic act related to daily home affairs and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the debt therefrom. However, it is difficult to see that the act of borrowing business funds belongs to the scope of daily home affairs, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant bears the above responsibility.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is groundless.