1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, on August 18, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to C at the interest rate of KRW 36% per annum and the due date of repayment on December 18, 2011.

On August 18, 2011, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C's above loan obligation against the plaintiff through agent C.

(hereinafter “this case’s joint and several sureties contract”). Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 30 million and delay damages therefor.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether C has the authority to conclude the instant joint and several sureties contract on behalf of the Defendant.

B. The evidence No. 1 (B) states that “C shall borrow 30 million won from the Plaintiff on August 18, 201, with interest rate of 36% per annum and due date of payment as of December 18, 2011.” The debtor’s column includes C’s personal information and seal impression, and the debtor’s joint and several sureties’s personal information and seal impression, respectively.

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document was affixed is affixed, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been made, i.e., by the intention of the person in whose name the document was affixed, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been made. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act was made by a person other than the person in whose name the document was signed, and thus, the person in whose name the document was affixed shall be liable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009). The fact that the stamp image affixed with Gap evidence Nos. 1 (the tea certificate) is printed out by the defendant's seal is not a dispute between the parties, but there is no dispute between the parties, and thus, the presumption of the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1 was broken, and the plaintiff, the document presenter, is delegated by the defendant, the name of the document requester.