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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

2. The defendant asserts that Gap evidence No. 8 (Incompetence) was written against his will, and thus, he examined this.

If the seal affixed to the seal affixed to a document is affixed by his seal, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the seal affixed to the document would be based on the will of the person who prepared the document, i.e., the act of affixing the seal, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003; 200Da38602, Oct. 13, 200; 88Meu6815, Apr. 25, 1989). No dispute exists between the parties that the seal affixed to the document is based on the Defendant’s seal affixed to the document, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the document was prepared against the Defendant’s will.

In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is acknowledged, barring any special circumstance, it is recognized that there was an expression of intent according to the content of the written statement, and thus, it is recognized that the Defendant promised to pay KRW 83,265,40 to the Plaintiff on November 10, 2014 by means of the statement in the evidence No. 8,

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 57,301,290 to the Plaintiff, excluding the amount that the Plaintiff was paid out of KRW 83,265,400.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded as above, is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.