1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. C written a certificate of borrowing each of the loans of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, KRW 20 million on April 10, 2008, KRW 23,000 on October 23, 2008, KRW 17,000 on February 17, 2009, KRW 30 million on June 1, 2009, and KRW 30 million on June 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant loans”).

B. On July 22, 2013, when the debtor C and the defendant, the borrowed amount of KRW 70 million, the due date for repayment, and the borrowed amount of KRW 22,000,000,000, were written with the loan certificate as of October 22, 2013 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The defendant’s seal impression is affixed on the name of the defendant on the loan certificate of this case.

C. On July 22, 2013, C issued the instant loan certificate and the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression (No. 2) issued as of July 22, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

The defendant is a wife of C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff loaned the instant loan to Plaintiff C by setting the interest rate of 2% per month.

On July 22, 2013, the Defendant, his wife, promised to repay the Plaintiff’s above loan repayment obligations to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and affixed the Defendant’s seal imprint on the loan certificate in this case.

However, since the Defendant paid only the interest to the Plaintiff until August 1, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay the principal of KRW 70 million and 24% per annum from August 2, 2013 to the date of full payment (=2% per month x 12 months).

B. Defendant C arbitrarily affixed the Defendant’s seal imprint, thereby forging the loan certificate of this case, and the Defendant did not affix his seal imprint on the loan certificate of this case.

② Even if the authenticity of the instant loan certificate is recognized, the Plaintiff paid the instant loan to C, not the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have the obligation to repay the loan.

③ Also, the sum of the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account used by C from the Plaintiff’s account is KRW 45 million.