1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) the Defendant A’s “Defendant A” in the 3rd, 3, 8, and 14th, the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “A” is deemed as “A.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants, the inheritor, succeeded to the net H’s joint and several liability under the said special agreement, as the network H’s joint and several liability was jointly and severally guaranteed under the instant special agreement agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants succeeded to the obligations of promissory notes worth KRW 80 million at par value as of December 19, 2013, issued by A under the instant secondary special agreement agreement, and thus, the Defendants are liable to pay the amount of indemnity to the Plaintiff who subrogated for the obligations of the said promissory notes in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement with A.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the personal information of the network H stated in the instant secondary special agreement transaction agreement is not indicated by the network H, but rather by the network H.

Therefore, since the network H had not been jointly and severally guaranteed for the obligation under the instant secondary special agreement, the Defendants, the inheritors, did not succeed to the joint and several liability obligations.

3. Determination

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted in the document is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person who prepared the document, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal is based on the legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared the document.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 delivered on April 8, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles.