1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion is as shown in the ground for claim attached to the summary of the claim

(However, the creditor's "the plaintiff and the debtor" are deemed to be the defendant, and the payment order for the debtor C was finally decided).

Judgment

1) First of all, in light of the health care unit and the result of appraiser D’s appraisal as to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan, it is difficult to recognize the portion corresponding to the Defendant out of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant comprehensively entrusted the Defendant’s joint and several guarantee of the obligation of the instant loan to the principal debtor C, her husband, but it is insufficient to recognize it solely by the entries in the evidence Nos. 5

3 The plaintiff also asserts that the defendant is responsible for the expressive representation under Articles 125 through 126 of the Civil Act.

However, the expression agency by the indication of the power of representation under Article 125 of the Civil Act is established when a person acts with a third party on behalf of the principal regardless of the nature or validity of the basic legal relations between the principal and the person who acts as an agent, and the principal has granted the power of representation to the third party in doing the legal act on behalf of the principal. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of the evidence No. 5 to No. 8 alone has given the power of representation to C to the Plaintiff.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s telephone number was indicated in the instant loan agreement, so it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason to believe that C has the authority to act for the Defendant, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff did not undergo any verification procedure, even though it was possible to easily confirm whether the right of representation was granted through telephone conversations with

2. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected, and it is so decided as per Disposition.