1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The instant issues asserted by the parties and the Plaintiff, based on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, lent KRW 500 million to C (hereinafter “C”) on January 25, 2013, and KRW 300 million on March 23, 2013, and asserted that the Defendant jointly guaranteed the above loan obligation, and sought payment of KRW 800 million as the instant lawsuit.

In this regard, the defendant denies the above joint and several guarantee, and the defendant asserts that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, stating the joint and several guarantee of Eul's loan obligation, has been forged.

Therefore, in this case, I first examine whether the authenticity of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 can be established, and examine other evidence submitted by the plaintiff.

Judgment

If the authenticity of each of the instant contracts (Evidence A 1 and 2) is reproduced by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act is presumed to have been established. However, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprints is based on the intent of the person holding the title to the document, i.e., the creation of the authenticity of the seal imprints, is de facto presumed. Thus, if a person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprints the court to prove circumstances that the act of preparing the seal imprints according to the intention of the person holding the title to the document, the presumption of the authenticity shall be broken, unless

(2) In light of the fact that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, inasmuch as there is no clear and acceptable evidence that the content of the document is denied, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized, in presumption of the authenticity of the disposal document based on the seal of the originator’s seal, and the Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122 Decided February 11, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da5922, Sept. 6, 2002).