The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the records in light of the records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, against the rules of logic and experience

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not express his/her intent to take over the loan debt of this case in parallel, but rather expressed his/her intent to act as a joint and several surety, based on Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Protection of Surety since the declaration of intention to act as a joint and several surety was not indicated in a document with the name and seal

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending legal principles as to the interpretation of expression of intent, overlapping assumption of obligation, and application of Article 3

3. The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.