2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff received from Nonparty C two copies of each Promissory Notes (hereinafter “each Promissory Notes of this case”) with a face value of KRW 100,000,000, and KRW 50,000,000 from each issuer, payee, Plaintiff, and date of issuance.

B. C is a person registered as C’s president from February 24, 2009 to November 25, 2013, and again as D’s president from December 5, 2013 to November 27, 2016.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination:

A. 1) The Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff issued each of the Promissory Notes in this case, asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the face value of each of the Promissory Notes in this case as the issuer, and the Defendant asserts that each of the Promissory Notes in this case was forged. Each of the Promissory Notes in this case is proved to have been forged, barring any special circumstance. In a case where the stamp image affixed on a document is printed out by his seal, the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, i.e., the act of affixing a seal is based on the intention of the titleholder, and the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established if it is presumed that the stamp image was made by a person other than the titleholder, but the actual presumption is broken if it is proved that the act of affixing a seal was made by a person other than the titleholder, and thus, the presenter of the document bears the responsibility to prove that the act of affixing a seal was based on the legitimate title delegated by the titleholder, and if the person asserts that the bill was forged as the obligor’s signature and seal in this case.