1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the entire content of the third party of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details 1) The portion of the loan certificate No. 3-4, 5 (each loan certificate) against the Defendant cannot be used as evidence of this case, as the authenticity is not recognized for the following reasons. ① The mortgage contract document and the power of attorney delegated by the Defendant or the Defendant on April 8, 201, when the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s seal impression, but the Defendant did not affix the seal impression on each loan certificate written on the same day (in depth, the loan certificate No. 3-4, only the D corporation seal is affixed on the Defendant’s name and the Defendant’s seal is affixed on the loan certificate written on the same day, and the Defendant’s seal impression is not affixed.

(2) If the Defendant or C had an intent to jointly and severally guarantee the instant joint and several sureties beyond the intent to offer security, the Plaintiff or D representative F requested the Defendant or C to affix the Defendant’s seal impression on each of the above loan certificates, which would have not been subject to each request. (3) In light of the above circumstances, it appears that there was no direct intervention by the Defendant or C at the time of the preparation of each of the above loan certificates. Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant or C allowed the Plaintiff or C to write the Defendant on the respective loan certificates as a joint and several sureties, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (2) Other evidence No. 3-6 (the Defendant alleged to be forged, but according to the description and image of the evidence No. 7-4, the identity of the Defendant’s seal imprint, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established) and the evidence No. 7-1, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 27-1, No. C.