1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On October 18, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s wife C.

B. On October 20, 2015, C issued to the Plaintiff a loan certificate with C and a joint guarantor as the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”).

In the joint and several surety for the loan certificate of this case, the name of the printed defendant and the seal imprint of the defendant are affixed thereto.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the agreed interest in arrears calculated at the rate of KRW 100 million and 24% per annum to the plaintiff, as the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the C borrowed loan.

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document was affixed is affixed, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been made, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been made. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, so the person in whose name the document was

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the part of the Defendant’s seal impression in the column of joint and several sureties among the loan certificates in this case can be recognized that the Defendant’s wife C affixes and seals.

Therefore, the plaintiff is responsible for proving that the above act of sealing C was based on a legitimate title delegated by the defendant. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that C was delegated by the defendant with the authority to affix the above seal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Ultimately, this case.