A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 76 million to the Defendant around 1996. 2) The Defendant, around 2004, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff would repay the above KRW 76 million to the Plaintiff by August 2004.

3) On March 22, 2018, the Defendant re-established and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan worth KRW 76 million. [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2 [the defendant is the person who directly signed the certificate of loan on March 22, 2018, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established.

On the other hand, as to the above documents, the defendant stated only his name, signature, date, and return to the plaintiff in blank, and the remainder claimed to the effect that the plaintiff was forged or altered. However, the circumstance that the plaintiff first signed and sealed only when the whole or part of the documents was not completed belongs to the case in light of the empirical rule. Thus, in order to reverse the presumption of authenticity as a completion document, there is a need for evidence such as reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof to support the presumption of authenticity (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003). Eul's statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 are insufficient to reverse the presumption of authenticity of the above loan certificate and there is no other counter-proof, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loans of KRW 76 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s claim was extinguished by the completion of prescription, and the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription.

According to the above facts, the defendant first borrowed KRW 76 million from the plaintiff around 1996 and then prepared and delivered a certificate of loan to the plaintiff around 2004.