1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2002, C prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff an agreement on the repayment of the borrowed loan (No. 2, hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”) as shown in the attached sheet, and at the time, C entered or sealed both the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, and Do.

B. On April 7, 2002, the Defendant purchased the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E site and ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) jointly with D, who is the Defendant’s birth, but sold it to the third party on November 1, 2003.

C. The defendant, on June 4, 2004, did not reach an agreement with C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff asserted that, upon the request of C from May 2002 to July 25, 2002, the plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 25 million to the defendant and C as of July 25, 2005, a total of KRW 25 million to the defendant and C, who were the married couple at the time, with the interest rate fixed and lent on May 2, 200 and July 25, 2005, and sought payment of the loan of this case and the amount of damages for delay of the agreement with the defendant. 2) As to this, the defendant raised that the defendant could not accept the plaintiff's claim because he did not lend money to the plaintiff jointly with the former husband C or granted the power of representation to C.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s name, resident registration number, and design are written or sealed by C on the loan certificate of this case. Since the Defendant’s seal affixed on the loan certificate of this case is not a seal imprint, the Defendant’s seal impression is not attached, and C did not have the Defendant’s seal impression. In light of the fact that, at the time of issuance of the loan certificate of this case, it was possible for C to easily confirm whether to grant the right of representation by directly linking telephone conversations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of issuance of the loan certificate of this case, C’s testimony that the Defendant was granted the right of representation to prepare the loan certificate of this case is difficult to believe, and the Defendant