A. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of lending KRW 200 million to Defendant B, Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligation to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 200 million and the damages for delay thereof. 2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that: (a) there was a fact that the Plaintiff prepared the evidence No. 3 (a copy of the certificate of rent; hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”); but (b) under the agreement with the Plaintiff, the original was discarded; and (c) the Plaintiff is not a loan but a loan amount of KRW 200 million paid to Defendant B.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the authenticity of the instant loan certificate, a private document shall be presumed to be genuine when it is signed, sealed, or stamped by the principal or his/her agent. According to Article 355(1) of the same Act, when it is submitted or sent a document to a court, the submission of evidence by only the original, original, or certified copy, other than the certified copy, shall be inappropriate in principle as there is no accurate guarantee. If a copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall be independent documentary evidence. However, the original shall not be deemed to have been submitted, but at this time, the original shall be deemed to have the same original as a copy by evidence, and the original shall be deemed to have been duly established (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da6133, Aug. 23, 2002; 200Da6133, Feb. 22, 2017; thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendants signed the original document as a copy of the original document.