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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On December 28, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband C, through the Plaintiff’s husband C, lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant at an interest rate of 2% per month and by December 27, 2011.

B. There is no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 55 million from the Defendant.

However, on December 28, 2010, in order for the Defendant’s husband D to borrow and secure KRW 24 million from the Plaintiff’s husband C, there was only a fact that the Defendant, as the obligor, and the Plaintiff, as the obligee, set up a right to collateral security of KRW 5 million against the maximum debt amount of KRW 5 million in Seoul, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”), which is owned by the Defendant, as the obligee, and the said KRW 24 million was fully repaid.

2. As to the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1-1, Gap evidence No. 2, 3, 4 (each borrowed note), Gap evidence No. 10, Gap evidence No. 14 (each note and receipt), Gap evidence No. 23, Gap evidence No. 31-6, Gap evidence No. 37-1, Gap evidence No. 37-2, Gap evidence No. 37-3, Gap evidence No. 38-2 (each note and receipt), Gap evidence No. 38-4 (each note).

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprinted is actual presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of a title deed, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the court is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). Moreover, if a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, it is obvious and acceptable to deny the content of the document.