A. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate under the name of the Defendant stating “The amount: 50,000,000,000)” and the above amount was regularly borrowed, and the Defendant’s seal imprint is affixed to the Defendant’s name next to the above loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). There is no dispute between the parties.

B. As long as the authenticity of a written document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the written document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied. If the stamp image of the holder of a title deed affixed on the written document is displayed by his/her seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been established. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, the entire document shall be presumed to have been authentic in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da39172, Nov. 15, 2012). Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million borrowed and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Facilitation, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of the written complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant issued a certificate of the personal seal impression and a certificate of the seal impression to receive KRW 267,00,000, which was acquired through deception from C, and C (the defendant submitted a document to the effect that D forged the loan certificate of this case after the closing of argument, and a criminal case complaint related thereto) only prepared the loan certificate of this case using the above certificate of the seal impression, and there was no fact that the defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff made an investment in the business of so-called Bupyeong-gu E in Bupyeong-gu.

The authenticity of the seal imprint is created, that is, the seal is written by the holder.