1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

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

3...

Basic Facts

B (Death on March 24, 2009), on July 23, 2002, concluded a substitute exchange agreement (hereinafter “the substitute exchange agreement of this case”) with ELL Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Card Co., Ltd.”), whereby the loan principal was 18,410,000 won, interest rate of 19% per annum, interest interest rate of 24% per annum, interest rate of 24% per annum, and 48 months for the loan period of 48 months.

The defendant, who is the husband of B, is written in the application for the exchange loan as joint and several sureties.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant substitute exchange loan application”). EL Card Co., Ltd transferred the remaining principal of the loan 18,396,913 won under the instant substitute exchange loan agreement and interest and delay damages claim to the Plaintiff, and notified the transfer of the credit.

The Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction against 3/8 of the Defendant’s shares among the 91m2 in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and applied for a compulsory auction against 3/8m2 of the Defendant’s shares, and received 6,839,01 won from the date of distribution on December 27, 2007, and applied for the appropriation of the principal and interest remaining as of April 7, 2016, are the principal and interest amount of KRW 11,926,939, and interest interest interest amount of KRW 49,85

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole argument as to the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument is affixed with the defendant's seal affixed to the application for the substitution theory of this case, and D, an employee of EL card company, confirmed the defendant's intent of joint and several liability by wire. The defendant did not raise an objection to the plaintiff's compulsory execution on real estate owned by the defendant. In light of these circumstances, the defendant's joint and several liability is recognized.

Therefore, as a joint and several surety, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loans to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant's assertion is based on the seal of the defendant's joint and several surety's seal attached to the defendant's name of the joint and several surety's column for the exchange loan of this case, the defendant has no fact of sealing as joint and several surety's seal or indicating his intention of joint and several surety's intention, and there is no responsibility

Judgment

. . ..... in private documents.