1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

As to the plaintiff's loan and joint and several guarantee claim, the plaintiff sought a loan and interest and damages for delay based on the loan No. 1 (Evidence). The defendant Eul claimed to the effect that the loan was prepared for the purpose of receiving dividends in the auction procedure, and that there was no real lending of money.

If a seal imprint affixed on a private document is affixed with the seal affixed to it, the authenticity of the seal imprint shall be presumed, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, as long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da56616, Nov. 11, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no dispute over the fact that the seal affixed to the health room and the evidence No. 1 (Evidence) was affixed by Defendant B’s seal, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established.

As stated in the loan certificate which is a disposal document, the Plaintiff can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 12% per annum to Defendant B on May 8, 2009, the due date of payment was 25% per annum, and the delay damages rate of KRW 150,298,953 on December 31, 2010. The above recognition is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no clear and acceptable evidence to deny the above lending.

On the other hand, according to the purport of Gap's statement and the whole argument, defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loan and interest and damages for delay to the plaintiff as a joint and several guarantee against the plaintiff on May 8, 2009. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above loan, interest and damages for delay.

Judgment on the initial date of the damages for delay.