(a) as shown in the reasons for the application to indicate the claim;

(However, the "creditor" and "debtor" are deemed to be the "Defendant", and the plaintiff corrected the part of the claim for damages for delay as stated in the Disposition No. 1).

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that the stamp image on the loan certificate of this case (A No. 4) is identical with the Defendant’s seal imprint, but the Defendant’s husband was prepared without the Defendant’s consent, and the Defendant’s husband was not the Defendant’s husband borrowed money from the deceased. However, if the stamp image on the document is reproduced by his/her seal imprint, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image is established, i.e., the act of sealing is based on the intention of the preparing titleholder. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the stamp is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s husband affixed the Defendant’s seal imprint on the loan certificate of this case without the Defendant’s permission. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s husband paid the loan of this case from time to time,

3. Ultimately, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

2. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the Disposition No. 1.