A. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 78 million to C on June 13, 2013 at the maturity of payment on June 14, 2014; and (b) on June 25, 2014, at the rate of delay damages; and (c) written out by the Defendant a money loan loan contract notarial deeds (hereinafter “instant notarial deeds”); and (d) the Defendant delegated C with the authority to prepare the Defendant as a joint surety on the instant notarial deeds by designating the Defendant as a joint surety, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established as the Defendant’s seal, as the Defendant’s name side seal in the column of “A” and “A 5” did not conflict with the Defendant.

The Defendant left the Defendant’s seal impression and seal impression to C for approval while engaging in the business of delivering food materials for school meal services with C. However, the Defendant’s seal impression impression and the Defendant’s seal impression impression were forged to the effect that C arbitrarily affixed the Defendant’s seal impression impression on the Defendant’s name side of the proxy letter box. However, the circumstance that the Defendant’s seal impression attached to the proxy letter for preparing the instant notarial deed can be recognized as being issued directly by the Defendant on June 13, 2013, the date when the said notarial deed was prepared, and there is no other reason to return the above notice to the Defendant. Considering that the Defendant appears to have received the above notice, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s notice from C and then did not raise any objection, and it is difficult to accept that the Defendant voluntarily made the above notarial deed on the premise that C’s seal impression was issued by hearing explanation of the circumstances regarding preparation of the notarial deed and issued it to C, and it appears to have been used by the Defendant’s signature and seal impression.