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

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

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The part of the proviso of Article 6 of the above contract is forged, and the defendant cannot assert the effect of the proviso to the above contract to the plaintiff, since H had the plaintiff's representative affix the plaintiff's seal to the contract, but failed to verify the phrase of the contract properly.

B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of a nominal holder’s seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, if the authenticity of the seal imprinted by his/her seal imprinted, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the establishment of the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the intent of the nominal holder, the presumption of the authenticity is broken if the person disputing the authenticity

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da462, Jun. 13, 1997; 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). Moreover, inasmuch as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence and content of a declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized, inasmuch as there is no clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the document.