1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On June 2012, the Plaintiff, while mediating B to purchase a 4.5 tons truck (C) in Korea, requested D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to provide an installment loan.

On June 25, 2012, the Defendant entered into an erroneous installment agreement with B, loans of KRW 60 million, annual interest rate of KRW 19.9%, and joint and several liability E, and paid the above loans.

After that, the name of the plaintiff was stated in the column of joint and several sureties of the above letter of agreement (Evidence No. 1) and the plaintiff's seal was affixed next thereto.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff's signature and the plaintiff's seal impression were forged.

Since F, an employee of the non-party company, needs the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression and a certified copy and abstract of resident registration as internal documents, only the Plaintiff did the said documents.

Judgment

According to the results of the appraisal by the appraiser G, it is recognized that the name and address of the plaintiff in the above joint and several sureties column are not written by the plaintiff.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the witness H’s testimony and the entire argument, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s seal impression affixed on the above joint and several liability column is presumed to be identical to the Plaintiff’s seal impression on the Plaintiff’s certificate; (ii) H, the representative of the non-party company, specifically stated the details of the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability; (iii) the Plaintiff’s seal impression was attached to the above letter of agreement; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the certificate of personal seal impression was issued for internal purpose is difficult to accept; and (iv) the Plaintiff paid KRW 230,000 on October 24, 2014 to the Defendant, and KRW 222,00 on November 28, 2014 respectively, the above facts described in paragraph (1) and the evidence stated in subparagraphs 3 through 5 and 7 are alone.