제3자이의
1. The Defendant’s notary public against C is transferred for security at Law Firm Shin, No. 307, 2013.
1. The following facts can be presumed to be the authenticity of the document as a whole since there is no dispute between the parties or as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and 7-1 (this Court's appraisal of appraiser D) (this Court's name is recognized by the result of the request for appraisal of appraiser D, and the following stamp image is based on Eul's seal imprint. The defendant asserts that Eul, the actual representative of the plaintiff, at around October 2012, needed for vehicle purchase, etc., and arbitrarily affixed the above seal imprint to Eul in this document. However, the defendant asserts that Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and Eul's witness's testimony merely come to know the face through F for borrowing money, and it is difficult to believe that Eul's own cargo certificate was delivered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to prove that Gap's evidence No. 1 and Gap's entire document No. 2 were insufficient to recognize the authenticity of Gap's entire document.
Although the defendant asserts that the above seal imprint C and F, the testimony of the witness C alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence No. 33, F is a witness of the case interfering with the business affairs of Lo Government District Court 2014DaMa840, Dec. 16, 2014, and it appears on December 16, 2014, and the above seal imprint C is affixed and sealed by C.