1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted on January 27, 2005 that the plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the designated parties C on November 30, 2007. The defendant (appointed parties) and the appointed parties D jointly and severally guaranteed the designated parties C's obligation to borrow loans.

Therefore, the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed parties are jointly and severally liable to repay the above borrowed money.

B. The Defendant (Appointed Party) 1 did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and there is no fact that Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed were jointly and severally guaranteed by the Defendant (Appointed Party). The stamp image of the Appointed Party C and the Defendant (Appointed Party) affixed with the loan certificate (Evidence A) is consistent with the seal of the Appointed Party C and the Defendant (Appointed Party) but the Appointed Party’s husband and the Defendant (Appointed Party) affixed the seal at will. In addition, the stamp image attached with the name of the Appointed Party D is not D. Meanwhile, the Appointed Party D is not the Appointed. Meanwhile, the Appointed Party D became final and conclusive on February 6, 2009 (Immunity District Court Decision 2008 75) and thus, it is not liable to pay its debt.

2. Determination

A. The content as alleged by the Plaintiff at issue is as follows: (a) on January 27, 2005, the Selection C borrowed KRW 30,000,00 from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2007; (b) on November 30, 2007, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Selection D prepared a loan certificate stating that the Selection’s debt is jointly and severally guaranteed by the Selection C; and (c) the said loan certificate is the only evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Based on this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties are liable for the repayment, and that there was no document prepared by the Defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties. Thus, this paper examines whether the above loan certificate was drafted by the Defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties and the Plaintiff’s claim can be accepted.

B. 1) Determination 1) The Appointed C and the Defendant (Appointed Party C) affixed with the seal on the loan certificate (No. 1).