1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the “C” operated by the Defendant on January 24, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) set the maturity date on February 23, 2005, and lent KRW 15,000,000 to Nonparty D, among the Defendant’s observation, to Nonparty D as the maturity date; and (b) drafted a certificate of borrowing.

B. The above loan certificate contains the above D's name, and the unmanned seal is affixed to the next side, and the defendant's name is written at the bottom of the loan certificate as see pen.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion concerning the cause of the claim is that he believed the defendant and lent the above 15,000,000 won to the deceased D, and since the defendant stated his name in the loan certificate, the defendant as the guarantor is obligated to pay the above loan 15,00,000 won to the plaintiff as the guarantor. 2) The defendant's assertion that he did not have signed the above loan certificate, and even if he signed the letter, he did not have signed it with the intent to guarantee the obligation of the plaintiff to D, it is not signed with the intention to guarantee the obligation of the plaintiff to the plaintiff,

3. The defendant's defense that Gap evidence No. 1 was forged, and thus, I examine this.

According to the statement of the result of the appraiser E in the first instance court's written appraisal, part of the statement of "B" in the evidence No. 1 is observed by the defendant's writing and some differences are observed. The pen book of the object of appraisal is merely a single-time pen with the defendant's name, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant signed the above appraisal result merely because the pen book of the object of appraisal is 14, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant signed the evidence No. 1.

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant explicitly expressed his/her intent to guarantee the above obligation.