A. On January 5, 2007, the Plaintiff has lent money to the Defendant before January 5, 2007. 2) The Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000 on January 5, 2007 and repaid by March 31, 2007."

3) The Plaintiff prepared the Plaintiff’s written statement of No. 10, No. 10, and No. 111 (including each number, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

B. 1) The parties’ assertion and determination 1) The plaintiff lent KRW 10,00,00 to the defendant on or before May 1, 2007, and claimed that the loan 10,000,000 was issued, and the defendant paid the loan 10,000,000 and delayed payment damages therefrom. The defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff. The defendant's seal affixed on the loan certificate of this case is recognized. However, the defendant's signature affixed on the loan certificate of this case is proved to the purport that the plaintiff stolen the defendant's seal received from the defendant for notarial acts at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate of this case. 2) If the seal affixed on the private document of this case was sent out by his seal, it is presumed that the act of signing the seal was based on the intention of the holder of the title, i.e., the document's authenticity is established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da53208, Apr. 208).

Supreme Court Decision 94Da16601 delivered on February 10, 1995 and Supreme Court Decision 11 delivered on October 11, 1994