beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's argument as to the plaintiff's assertion argues that the defendant's wife is the joint defendant C of the first instance court's demand to lend KRW 15 million to C, and that it is required to offer security for it, and that C prepares a notarial deed of promissory note (Evidence A) with a face value of KRW 15 million with a joint issuer and the defendant as a joint issuer, as well as the defendant prepares a notarial deed (Evidence A (Evidence 2) with a purport to guarantee the defendant's obligation to borrow KRW 10 million and transfers the above money to the account under the defendant's name, so the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the above loan to C and the plaintiff.
In light of the following circumstances, although evidence Nos. 2 and 3 exists as evidence that conforms to the plaintiff's above assertion, it is difficult to believe that C grants the right of representation in relation to the guarantee of the loan of this case to C, and it is difficult to deem that C has justifiable grounds to believe that it has the right of representation in relation to the guarantee of the loan of this case on behalf of the defendant without the defendant's consent, by using the defendant's seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, etc., which is the husband, and a promissorysory note and the loan certificate which the defendant made the defendant to the plaintiff as the guarantor, without the defendant's consent. The defendant did not have such a position at the time when preparing the above promissory note and the loan certificate, and the plaintiff did not confirm the defendant's intention. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that C granted the plaintiff the right of representation in relation to the loan of this case on behalf of the defendant.
In addition, the evidence No. 1 was prepared by the commission of C, which is an unauthorized representative, as seen earlier, so it is believed that the plaintiff believed to have the right of representation.