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

purport, purport, and.

After that, after July 27, 2009, G died, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants, the heir of G, and E of the termination of the lease contract verbally.

Therefore, the Defendants and E are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000,000.

2. Determination:

A. The evidence proving that the lease contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and G is indicated as Gap evidence 1 (the real estate lease contract of this case; hereinafter "the contract of this case") and Gap evidence 5 (the statement of deposit transaction records).

However, the Defendants dispute the establishment of the authenticity of the instant contract by asserting that the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate was used by stealing and affixed to the instant contract. Therefore, we first examine whether the instant contract was made based on G’s intent.

B. If (1) The authenticity of the instant contract is presumed to be established, barring any special circumstance, if the seal imprinted by the holder’s seal affixed on the private document is affixed, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprint is actual presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the title deed, the presumption of the authenticity is broken if the person who disputes the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of the title deed proves circumstances that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the title deed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667, Sept. 26, 2014). The dispute between the parties is that the seal imprinted on the instant contract is affixed by the G’s seal imprint.