1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Around September 20, 201, the Plaintiff lent D KRW 15,000,000 to D, and D continued to pay the above amount, and on March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a loan certificate of KRW 15,000,000, the due date for repayment as of June 15, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

B. On the same day D entered the name of the defendant who is the spouse as the guarantor in the instant loan certificate (Evidence A (Evidence A).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, part of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant guaranteed D's debt to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 15,000,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

The guarantor in the name of the defendant among the evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence No. 1) has no evidence to prove that the defendant had the authority to sign on behalf of the defendant, and otherwise, the authenticity cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no other evidence to prove the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to prove the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the plaintiff asserts that D and the defendant are the couple, and D are entitled to represent the defendant with respect to daily home affairs, and that D borrowed the above money under the name of the defendant on behalf of D and guaranteed D's loan obligations on behalf of D in the name of the defendant by borrowing the above money under the name of the restaurant cooling and purchase operated by the couple. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above money to D as the guarantor.

The plaintiff used the money borrowed from the plaintiff to purchase at a restaurant cooling house operated by the plaintiff, although there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant and D had been the couple at the time of lending the money to D, and D used the money borrowed from the plaintiff as the purchase cost.

There is no evidence to prove that either D or D entered into a guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant with respect to daily home affairs.