1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On January 7, 2003, the Plaintiff’s husband B, who was the Plaintiff’s husband, entered the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Defendant concluded a guarantee contract between the Plaintiff and B to guarantee the advance payment or the damages incurred to the Plaintiff while serving as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant guarantee contract”).

B, while working for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not repay KRW 13,752,90 from April 2012.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13,752,90 and damages for delay pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement.

2. Determination

A. Considering that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, inasmuch as the content of the document is clear and acceptable, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized, inasmuch as the content of the document is not acceptable, it should be careful in recognizing the authenticity of the disposal document. Even if it is a disposal document, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document cannot be recognized unless it is proven that it is forged and the authenticity is not recognized

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's signature and seal on the joint and several surety (Evidence A) that the plaintiff submitted as evidence of the conclusion of the contract of this case. In light of the video and the purport of the whole pleadings of the certificate of the personal seal impression attached to the evidence No. 1, the above joint and several surety's name is stated in the above joint and several surety's name and the seal affixed to the name of the defendant is recognized as the defendant's seal.

However, according to the Gap evidence No. 17, the plaintiff appraised the above joint and several sureties's statement outside the prescribed amount, and the appraiser shows that the penology of the joint and several sureties's column is different from the defendant's penology, and it is true that the appraiser shows that the penology of the joint and several sureties's column is different from the defendant's penology.