A. A. Around February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to Nonparty E, and the Plaintiff issued a certificate of personal seal impression for each of the Plaintiff’s issuance of 50,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, “50,000,000 won,” and each of the Plaintiff’s issuance of 50,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on March 30, 2009, E and Defendant B, respectively.

B. On February 13, 2015, E died, and accordingly, Defendant D, Defendant B, and C, the spouse, jointly inherited the E’s property.

C. Defendant D and C filed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance with the Seoul Family Court 2015 D and C as the Seoul Family Court 2015 D and C, and the said court rendered a judgment to accept the said declaration on July 2, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1 to 9, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) on February 27, 2009 lent KRW 50,000,000 to E, and the defendant Eul, who is the child of E, jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the loan, as the joint and several surety, the defendant Eul is liable to pay the above loan amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff as the joint and several surety and the damages for delay.

(2) Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B used Defendant B to open a telephone under the name of Defendant B at the time, and there is only a fact that Defendant B issued the seal imprint certificate along with documents such as a certificate of the personal seal impression, and Defendant B, without any authority, prepared the instant letter of payment in the name of Defendant B, etc., and thus, Defendant B was not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the debt.

B. (1) The authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed, barring any special circumstance, unless the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been established, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the content of the document can be denied.