1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the lead that made the successful bid system on August 15, 2017, and C was an instructor.

C In order to receive the fraternity awarded a successful tender on September 15, 2017, C prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the Defendant (the husband at that time) who is a joint and several surety (the husband at that time) and promised to pay each month to the Plaintiff thereafter.

Accordingly, on September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 36,090,000 to C. Since C did not pay the fraternity thereafter, C filed an application for immunity with the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2018Hadan263, which was declared bankrupt and 2018Ha263, and was granted immunity on October 4, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a joint and several surety in the loan certificate of this case, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 50 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's argument that the letter of loan in this case was written voluntarily by C without the defendant's consent, and thereafter, the defendant and C did not comply with the plaintiff's claim in this case.

2. One copy of the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, C, not the Defendant, directly recorded the Defendant’s name and affixed the seal of the Defendant on the joint and several surety column of the loan certificate, and as long as there was no evidence to deem that C, on behalf of the Defendant, was the authority to affix the Defendant’s seal on the above joint and several surety column, it is difficult to regard the validity of the loan certificate as effective to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

(A) On October 11, 2019, C received a summary order of KRW 3,00,000 as a charge for forging private documents in the case of Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon District Court Young-gu Branch 2019 high-level 824, and the said order became final and conclusive on October 23, 2019). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.