1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Nonparty B requested that the Defendant borrow money with the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate, proxy, certificate of personal seal impression, and identification card. Nonparty B trusted this, and delivered KRW 30,000,000 to B on June 25, 2010, and received a promissory note under the Defendant’s name from B at the time, and based on this, Nonparty B drafted a promissory note under the Defendant’s name.

(2) At the time of executing an order of seizure and collection based on the authentic deed of promissory notes in the name of the defendant, the defendant did not raise any objection.

(3) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff who acquired the claim from C.

B. The defendant's argument that B, who is the defendant's child, had the defendant's identification card and seal with the defendant's identification card and the certificate of the personal seal impression in the name of the defendant, issued a promissory note in the name of the defendant, and C prepared and delivered a power of attorney in the name of the defendant as necessary to prepare a promissory note with C, and the defendant did not borrow money from C or delegate authority to B.

2. Although there is no dispute between the parties who signed and sealed B on a promissory note (Evidence A No. 1) under the name of the defendant, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that B had the power of representation granted by the defendant with respect to the conclusion of a monetary loan agreement or the issuance of a promissory note (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42195, Sept. 25, 2008). There is no other circumstance to deem that the defendant bears the obligation against C, and there is no other circumstance to deem that the plaintiff bears the obligation against C.