1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 2016, the Defendant loaned KRW 166,30,000 to C, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, at the rate of 7.5% per annum and at the rate of 24% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). (b)

Under the loan contract for the above loan, the name of the plaintiff is written in the column of joint and several sureties, and the plaintiff's seal impression is affixed next to it.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to Article 428-2(1) of the Plaintiff’s assertion, a guarantee shall take effect in writing with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor.

However, the Plaintiff did not indicate in writing that C’s intent to guarantee the above loan obligation has been signed and sealed or signed.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not bear the joint and several liability as to the above loans against the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff seeks confirmation.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the name and seal under the above provision of the Civil Act is not necessarily required to be directly carried out by the principal, but can be carried out through the personal seal.

The Plaintiff issued C a certificate of the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression and seal imprint, etc. with the intent to jointly and severally guarantee C’s debt, and recognized the conclusion of a guarantee contract in a piracy call that confirms the intention of guarantee.

Therefore, joint and several guarantee contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was effective.

3. The first sentence of Article 428-2(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A guarantee shall take effect when the intent thereof is written with the name and seal or signature of the guarantor.” The term “the signature of the guarantor”, in principle, means that the guarantor directly takes the name of the guarantor, and thus, it does not constitute an act of another person taking the name of the guarantor in lieu of the name of the guarantor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da233576, Dec. 13, 2017). However, “the name and seal of the guarantor” refers