A. On March 10, 2009, Defendant C prepared and delivered to the deceased M (hereinafter “the deceased”) a certificate of borrowing with the effect that KRW 130 million will be repaid in 10 million each month from March 10, 2009 to April 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”). On the same day, Defendant B signed the loan certificate in the guarantor’s column, signed it on the same day, and made and delivered to the deceased each letter of the same contents as the instant loan certificate (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

B. On January 16, 2013, the Deceased left a note that he/she was making a fraudulent gambling from the Defendants, and committed suicide on the deceased’s deceased’s heir, and there was N,O, P, who is the deceased’s spouse, and N,O, P. On April 3, 2013, the deceased reported the renunciation of inheritance to the Cheongju District Court 2013Mo317, and the said court accepted the renunciation of inheritance on April 25, 2013.

[founded] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings [the defendant C claims that the identity of the defendant's stamp image attached to Gap evidence Nos. 8 is recognized and affixed by a person without authority. However, in a case where it is recognized that the stamp image attached to the document is a stamp image affixed by the seal of the holder of the title deed, barring special circumstances, the establishment of the stamp image, namely, the act of affixing the seal, is presumed to have been genuine based on the will of the holder of the title deed, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been completed, it is presumed that the entire document is authentic pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu109, Feb. 11, 1986). The evidence submitted by the defendants alone is insufficient to reverse the above presumption,

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the primary claim is that the Defendants, from around 2008 to 2009, drink and drink so that they cannot make a normal judgment on the deceased’s death. The Defendants, as to the primary claim, drinked with marking timber.