The part against Defendant D is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the establishment of an exchange contract by the Defendants, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, among the evidence No. 1, the Defendants’ assertion that the part in the Defendants’ name was forged among the evidence No. 1, was presumed to be the authenticity of the entire Defendants, since the seals affixed on the Defendants’ names and affixed on the Plaintiff’s name under No. 2 (a sales contract) that the Defendants’ authenticity was identical to the seals affixed on the Defendants’ names and affixed on the Plaintiff’s name under No. 2 (a sales contract) that recognized the authenticity by the Defendants.

In addition, the lower court determined that the sales contract, which was concluded on the same day as the instant exchange contract, was not a separate sales contract, but a part of the instant exchange contract, or that, even if it was established at the first time, its nature and content changed thereafter, it constituted a part of the instant exchange contract.

The ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding of the lower court is merely an error of the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on presumption of the authenticity of documents, the special law on the protection of guarantors, and the presumption

2. As to the ground of appeal on Defendant D’s agreement on debt exemption

(a) the Civil Procedure Act.