1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that C borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on July 18, 2012, and agreed that the interest rate of KRW 9% per annum and the delay damages rate of KRW 25% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan claim”), and the Defendant, the former spouse of C, jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan claim.

Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan claims through a limited liability company E and notified the Defendant thereof, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan claims KRW 29,678,630, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from March 31, 2018 to the date of full payment. The Defendant’s spouse C entered into a joint and several surety contract with the Defendant’s name without the Defendant’s consent.

However, C asserts that the defendant should pay the above money because it bears the responsibility for the expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Code because there is a common right of representation for the defendant who is the spouse.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not stand a joint and several surety for the loan claim of this case, and that the former spouse C concluded a joint and several surety contract by stealing the name of the defendant.

2. We examine the authenticity of the above document, inasmuch as the seal attached to the letter of guarantee (No. 1-2 page) submitted by the Plaintiff was affixed along with the Defendant’s signature and seal affixed to the Defendant’s name.

In view of the fact that the existence and content of an expression of intent according to the contents of a document should be recognized in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflect that the contents of the statement are denied, it shall be careful in estimatinging the authenticity of a disposal document by the seal of the person who prepared the document.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667, Sept. 26, 2014). In light of the results of the written appraisal of appraiser F of this Court, the said appraisal was conducted.