A. As to Defendant C and D, around August 1, 2014, Defendant C and Defendant D drafted a loan certificate (Evidence 2) stating that the Plaintiff shall pay the loan amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff until August 1, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff until August 8, 2014, on the condition that the loan principal shall be paid until August 8, 2014, on the condition that the loan principal shall be KRW 90,00,000 and interest of KRW 10,00,000 shall be repaid until October 8, 2014.

On October 13, 2014, Defendant C, as a joint and several surety, drafted a certificate of pecuniary use (Evidence A 3) to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay the principal and interest of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff not later than October 8, 2014, as it was impossible to repay the principal and interest of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff by October 8, 2014.

【Ground Defendant C: Defendant D with Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4: The above Defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff in accordance with the judgment by public notice.

B. As to Defendant B, however, the Plaintiff claimed the repayment of the loan against the above Defendant, but there is no evidence proving the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2. As to Defendant C’s assertion

A. The assertion of the loan certificate (Evidence A No. 2) was prepared formally at the request of the Plaintiff and Defendant D. Furthermore, since the Plaintiff remitted only KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant D out of KRW 90,000,000, the loan certificate is null and void. The money borrowed certificate (Evidence A 3) is null and void by Defendant D’s arbitrary seal affixed thereon.

B. In a case where the authenticity of a document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized, barring any special circumstance where the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document is obvious and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). Meanwhile, in a case where the seal of the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is displayed by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, and once the document is affixed, barring any special circumstance.