1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2012, Plaintiff A had a loan claim of KRW 33,000,000 to C.

C At around February 7, 2012, with the authorization of the Defendant who was the husband, the Plaintiff issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note note 1 in Seoul as of June 30, 2012, with a face value of 32,00,000,000 won, the due date of payment, and the place of payment.

B. On April 1, 2010, Plaintiff B lent KRW 30,000,00 to C at an annual interest rate of 18%.

C At the request of the Defendant around May 10, 2012, upon the delegation of the Defendant, C issued to Plaintiff B a promissory note with the issuer and C, face value of KRW 30,000,000, the due date of October 10, 2013, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, and written a notarial deed thereon.

C. The Plaintiffs received each of the above promissory notes from C and held them, and presented each of the said promissory notes to the Defendant, the issuer, through the service of a duplicate of the instant notes.

[Ground of recognition] Although there is no dispute between the parties, or there is a clear fact in the record, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 13 through 16 (including paper numbers), testimony by the witness of the first instance court, Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 1-2, and Gap evidence No. 5-4, and Gap's seal affixed to each of the defendant's promissory notes under the name of the defendant as stated in Gap evidence No. 13-16 and Eul's testimony by the witness of the first instance court, although there is no dispute between the parties, Eul has affixed the defendant's seal, taking into account each of the statements as stated in No. 13-16 and the whole purport of the pleading, and

The testimony of the witness C against this is against C and the defendant, the relationship between C and the defendant, the wrong funeral service for 30 years, the reason why the loan was borrowed and the purpose of the loan was not clearly stated, the fact that the plaintiff B had a currency with the defendant at the time of notarized, the fact that C had a custody of the defendant's seal impression even before C and borrowed money in the name of the defendant, and the defendant borrowed money from G.