대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons why the court states this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Defendant asserts that the loan certificate of this case was forged or falsified.
If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprinted is actual presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of a title deed, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the court is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the
(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Da462 delivered on June 13, 1997, 2002Da59122 delivered on February 11, 2003, etc.). The fact that the Defendant’s seal impression is affixed on the loan certificate of this case is as seen earlier, it is presumed that the loan certificate of this case was prepared according to the Defendant’s purport.
In addition, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the overall purport of the arguments, the above presumption is insufficient to reverse the above presumption on the sole basis of the following facts: the deceased, not the defendant, has made the defendant's name on the loan certificate of this case; the testimony of Gap witness G, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, and 2; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① From April 7, 2005 to March 27, 2006, the Plaintiff lent total of KRW 147,183,640 to the Defendant. From May 20, 2005 to March 21, 2006, the Plaintiff received total of KRW 29,000 from the Defendant. In settling the said money transaction with the Defendant, the Deceased on January 1, 2009 as joint and several sureties.