1. The guaranteed obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under a monetary loan agreement of March 5, 2003 (Redivate loan agreement) shall be 4,996.

1. Basic facts

A. B, on March 5, 2003, concluded a substitutional loan agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, setting the amount of KRW 7,600,000, interest rate of KRW 22%, and 36 months during the substitutional period (hereinafter “instant substitutional loan agreement”).

B. Declaration of bankruptcy and exemption of the Plaintiff: (a) on December 24, 2015, the Changwon District Court 2015Hadan10161; (b) on January 5, 2016; and (c) on January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for exemption from liability; and (d) the same year.

2.3. The decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “the decision to grant immunity”) was confirmed around the time when the decision became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is primarily based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that, at the time of the conclusion of the exchange loan agreement of this case, B forged documents and arbitrarily stated the Plaintiff as a joint and several surety, the Plaintiff did not bear the joint and several surety obligation under the exchange loan agreement of this case and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the guaranteed obligation under

Even if the Plaintiff is liable for joint and several liability according to the substitutional loan agreement of this case, the substitutional loan agreement of this case was made by forging documents without the Plaintiff’s consent, and thus, the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the obligation. The Plaintiff asserts that the obligation under the substitutional loan agreement of this case was exempted because at the time of applying for exemption from liability, the Plaintiff did not unlawfully omit the obligation under the substitutional loan agreement in bad faith.

B. 1) Determination 1) In a lawsuit to confirm the existence of a pecuniary obligation, where the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims specified the cause of the obligation and claims are asserted to deny the fact of the cause of the obligation, the Defendant, as the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). (b) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the seal affixed to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 was not his own seal.