대여금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 30,000,000 won and the same from November 25, 201 to the date of full payment.
1. The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, and evidence Nos. 2, 5 [In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser Gap's stamp image appraisal result, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic, and thus, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic. Accordingly, the defendant C and D were forged by the plaintiff (in borrowing money from the plaintiff, upon the plaintiff Eul's request, the provisional registration of the defendant C, which was established in the real estate owned by the defendant Eul, was transferred to the plaintiff during the period of transferring the provisional registration to the plaintiff in order to transfer the provisional registration, and the defendant C and D's seal imprint, certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, and right to provisional registration was delivered again to the plaintiff by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff again delivered them to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not transfer the provisional registration to the plaintiff, and without the authority of the loan of this case without the authority of this case.
(1) In the event that the Plaintiff’s provisional registration is transferred to the Plaintiff, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above forgery. The burden of proof that the document was forged is against the above Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the forgery. (In the event that the Defendant’s provisional registration is transferred to the Plaintiff, it is sufficient to deliver documents for provisional registration in the state where the above Defendants’ seal imprint is affixed, and the Defendant’s seal imprint itself was delivered to the Plaintiff. The part concerning Defendant C and D at the time of preparation of the loan certificate of this case, but it is difficult to believe this in light of the empirical rule.
[A] The written evidence No. 10 can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings. A.
Defendant B is Defendant D’s scenario (Defendant D’s husband F is the omission of Defendant B), and Defendant C is the omission of Defendant D.
(b).