1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff in Suwon District Court 2012 tea 3251 is denied.

2. This.

1. Basic facts

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) received loans from the Defendant on August 30, 201 by setting the respective interest rate of KRW 92,00,000 per annum 11.5% per annum, and damages for delay at 25% per annum, respectively (hereinafter “instant loans”).

B. At the time of the instant loan, the contract prepared by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s spouse, at the time, are indicated as joint and several sureties, and the Plaintiff’s seal impression was affixed thereto.

C. B, upon delinquency in the repayment of the principal and interest of the instant loan, the Defendant filed an application for the payment order with the Plaintiff as a joint guarantor for the instant loan against the Plaintiff as the Suwon District Court Decision 2012Da3251 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The payment order issued by the said court was served on the Plaintiff on October 25, 2012, but the said payment order became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The allegation that the Plaintiff did not stand a joint and several surety for the payment of the instant loan, and that the Plaintiff did not delegate the authority to stand a joint and several surety to C who prepared the contract at the time of the instant loan on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not bear a joint and several surety obligation for the instant loan obligations.

B. The Defendant also holds that the signature of the Plaintiff’s name stated in the instant loan agreement (A evidence 3-1, 2, and hereinafter “instant agreement”) is not the Plaintiff’s body. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the witness’s testimony, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s seal impression that C, who handled the instant loan agreement, was in his/her custody without the Plaintiff’s permission.