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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

【Additional Part】 The Defendant asserts that no signature was written in the credit transaction agreement of this case, and that the part of the Defendant’s name and address in the first page of the original letter of credit transaction of this case is not genuinely formed as being well attached from a separate paper.

In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document is the seal affixed to the document, unless there is a dispute between the parties that the seal affixed to the document was affixed to the document, the document is presumed to have been affixed to the authenticity of the document in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, barring special circumstances. Once it is presumed, the document presumed to have been signed without going against or against the will of the preparing party under Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the document presumed to have been written without going against or against the will of the preparing party under Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act should be proved by the claimant actively, and the probative value of evidence proving the facts of the defense is insufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da82158, Nov. 13, 2008). Thus, since there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant's seal affixed to the letter of credit transaction in this case was affixed to the defendant's seal affixed to the defendant, it is difficult to establish the letter of credit transaction in this case.

Rather, in light of the overall purport of the argument as a result of the request for appraisal by the court of the first instance for appraiser H, ① the Credit Transaction Agreement (No. 2-1) of this case.