청구이의
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. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, thereby citing this case’s assertion in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional determination of 2.
A. The plaintiff in the grounds of appeal asserts that since the loan certificate (A) of this case was prepared by a false agreement between the defendant and C, the representative director of the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company does not have the obligation to pay the defendant the money based on the loan certificate of this case.
Judgment
In general, in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act must be recognized as being in accordance with the content of the document, barring any special circumstances where it is clear and acceptable to deny the existence of the expression of intent expressed in the document and its contents. Barring special circumstances where the probative value of the disposal document is denied, it is not allowed to deny the probative value of the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990; 89Meu104, Nov. 10, 1989). In a case where the Plaintiff submitted additional documents at the trial at the trial, the Plaintiff 27 (including standard financial statements and branch numbers), the Plaintiff 28 (Payment Register), and the Plaintiff 29 (sale of Automobile)’s Certificate of Corporate Identification). Thus, the Plaintiff Company’s establishment of the authenticity is recognized as having no other reason to deny the probative value of the document. However, the Plaintiff Company did not have an obligation to interpret the amount of five million won or more.