1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Until September 2, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the cause of the claim occurred, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to C, which is the Defendant’s spouse, to the Defendant’s spouse, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 15 million and delay damages.

Judgment

First of all, the defendant's assertion Nos. 1 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") submitted by the plaintiff is disputing the authenticity of the loan certificate No. 1.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 5, 16, and 9, and the testimony of witness C of the first instance trial, the part of C’s seal affixed with the loan certificate of this case is based on C’s seal, and the fact that the Defendant’s certified copy issued as of August 16, 201, when the loan certificate of this case is delivered to the Plaintiff can be recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above and the statement in Gap evidence No. 16, the defendant's seal affixed to the loan certificate of this case, i.e., the defendant's seal affixed to the loan certificate of this case, which is different from the defendant's seal seal affixed to D, while the defendant's seal affixed to D which was written at a time similar to the loan certificate of this case, the defendant's seal affixed to the defendant's seal affixed to C, the defendant's resident registration record card was issued as agent, the defendant's certified copy was issued as agent, and the defendant's reply to the defendant's answer to the purport that the investigation agency did not have any means to issue the loan certificate to the plaintiff even in the course of the investigation into the detection of the false end of the loan, it is insufficient to recognize that

Therefore, the loan certificate of this case cannot be used as evidence, and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the loan to the plaintiff.