1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) 10 to 4 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same; and (b) 3 pages are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant signed and sealed the loan certificate (No. 6) as the surety on October 31, 2012 with respect to KRW 160,000,000 of principal amount as of KRW 100,000,000,000 (hereinafter the above loan certificate as to KRW 60,000,00

(2) Since it was delivered to the Plaintiff via B, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the debt equivalent to D’s above amount of loan to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the authenticity of the instant loan is not recognized, the Defendant implicitly ratified the joint and several liability according to the instant loan certificate. Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff believed that B was entitled to prepare the instant loan certificate on behalf of the Defendant who is the husband, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that B was entitled to prepare the instant loan certificate on behalf of the Defendant who is the husband. Thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the joint and several liability

B. If the seal imprinted by the holder’s seal affixed on a private document as to the authenticity of the instant loan certificate is affixed, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the

However, in fact, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprint is caused by the intention of the person in whose name the document is prepared is presumed, so if the person who disputes the authenticity of the seal imprint proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal is followed by the intention of the person in whose name the document is written, the presumption of the authenticity of the document is broken if the court proves that the act of affixing the seal is in

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). Moreover, where a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, it is clear and acceptable that the content of the statement can be denied.