1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (defendant)'s appeal and the claim extended in the trial are dismissed.

3.

1. The following facts are significant in this court, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review.

On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiff lent money several occasions to B, and at the same time confirmed that the amount of the loan from B up to the time was KRW 120 million,00,000,000. Of which, on May 31, 2009, the Plaintiff promised to receive payment on June 30, 2009, the remaining KRW 60,000 as well as on June 30, 2009 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Plaintiff received, around that time, a cash custody certificate (No. 2, hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) from the Defendant, D, E, and F on the instant agreement through F, as the surety.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B, Defendant, D, E, and F for a loan claim of KRW 120,000,000,000, Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap81679. On March 17, 2011, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against B on the ground that B is a mere guarantor, and rendered a favorable judgment against B and E on the ground that each of the above 120,000,000 won among the above 12,000,000 won and damages for delay are merely a mere guarantor, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant and E on the ground that the authenticity of the part under the name of the Defendant and E among the cash custody certificates of this case is not recognized, and the guaranty intention is not recognized (the first judgment in the judgment of review).

C. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court No. 201Na31548 with respect to E and the Defendant. On May 4, 2012, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal against E, and the Defendant’s portion is sealed with the seal of the Defendant on the cash storage certificate of this case. As such, among the cash storage certificate of this case, the authenticity of the Defendant portion among the cash storage certificate of this case is presumed to have been established and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion of forgery, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment ordering the Defendant and the Plaintiff as a guarantor for the contract deposit obligation of this case to pay KRW 40 million and damages for delay (Re-deliberation).