A. With respect to Gap evidence No. 1-1 (written evidence), 2 (written evidence of Cash Storage, Loan Certificate), 3 (written evidence of Cash Storage, Loan Certificate) and other cash custody certificate (written evidence) submitted by the plaintiff, the defendant does not directly prepare the original written evidence No. 1-1 as a document so far, and each written document No. 1-2 and 3 as well as the original document No. 1-2 and 3 as well as the original document are forged. In addition, the defendant's unmanned on each of the above documents is affixed against the defendant's will, and the plaintiff asserts that the authenticity of the above document is recognized as being established as the defendant.2) If the original document's seal affixed to the judgment document is affixed by the seal affixed to the original document's seal affixed to it, the defendant's act of preparing and sealing the original document's original document's signature cannot be presumed to have been established by the original document's signature and sealing, i.e., the presumption that the act of signing and sealing the original document's original document's signature and sealing is presumed to be established by 388.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da104232, Apr. 28, 2011; 2010Da104249, Apr. 8, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 2003; etc.] In relation to this case, the Defendant’s seal on the public health unit, each of the evidence No. 1-1, and evidence No. 1-2, and each of the evidence No. 1-3, respectively, on the cash custody (a car certificate) of the first instance court (the first instance court’s protocol of pleading, August 2, 2017, and the first instance court’s protocol of pleading, March 7, 2018; and each of the above statements and records.