1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination of the assertion of joint and several liability

A. On November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around November 27, 2014, leased KRW 50 million to C under the Defendant’s joint and several sureties; (b) the same year

9. 14. 2 million won has been additionally lent, and the defendant, as a joint and several surety, has a duty to pay 52 million won borrowed money.

B. There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C’s above loan obligation.

Witness

C testified that the above borrowed money was the debtor and the defendant signed as a joint and several surety on behalf of the defendant while preparing a loan certificate as a joint and several surety, and the plaintiff argued that C had the right of representation on the above joint and several surety, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, “the signature of the guarantor” under Article 3(1) of the former Special Act on the Protection of the guarantor, which was enforced at the time of the preparation of the above loan certificate (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter “former Act”) means, in principle, the guarantor’s personal name is written and another person uses the name in lieu of the guarantor’s name. Therefore, it is invalid for C to put its signature as a joint and several surety on behalf of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da23576, Dec. 13, 2017).

Even if it is assumed that there is a joint and several liability for the Defendant, in full view of the entries in Eul evidence 1 and the testimony of the witness C, the Defendant’s joint and several liability for the above loan debt of Eul on February 3, 2016, and on the same day C guaranteed the above loan debt of Eul Co., Ltd., and at the time, the Plaintiff can be recognized as having returned the above loan debt to C, and accordingly, the Defendant’s joint and several liability is exempted instead of bearing the above loan debt of D and C.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

2. Determination on the assertion of joint tort

A. C, who is the bad credit holder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is without the intent or ability of performance.