1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 26, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 300 million to Daesung Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mosung Products”). On January 26, 2013, the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff to pay the said loan on behalf of the Plaintiff in the event that Daesung Products did not repay the loan by February 26, 2013.

However, since the Daesung did not repay the above loan by February 26, 2013, the defendant is obliged to pay 300 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. 1) The evidence No. 1 (written confirmation) was forged by the Defendant’s employee B, and the Defendant did not have agreed with the Plaintiff to guarantee the Defendant’s loan obligations to the Plaintiff of the Daesungsan. 2) Even if the Defendant entered into a guarantee agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s representative under the Community Credit Cooperatives Act was null and void, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

2. Determination:

A. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature affixed to a document as to whether to sign a guarantee agreement is made, if the signature affixed to the document is withdrawn by his/her seal, the authenticity of the document is actually presumed to have been made, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person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. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is 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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). As to whether the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (written confirmation) is established, the health unit and the Defendant’s seal affixed on the written confirmation are affixed with the Defendant’s seal, and thus, the Defendant did not dispute that the Defendant’s seal affixed on the written confirmation was affixed with the Defendant’s seal, and thus, the Defendant’