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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On September 7, 2004, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to B on a monthly basis and November 6, 2004.

B. The money tea certificate (hereinafter “instant certificate”) written with respect to the above loan claims at the time contains the type of business registration number B and the “do retail wood joint board” as “E Company B” in the debtor column. The Defendant’s name, address, resident registration number, and other personal information are written in the column as joint and several sureties, and the Defendant’s seal is affixed with a seal.

C. From January 7, 2008 to September 21, 2009, the sum of KRW 7,000,000 has been transferred to the Plaintiff’s account six times between the deposit account opened in the D Bank on March 13, 201.

On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that B and the Defendant jointly pay the borrowed amount and the delay damages.

The judgment of the first instance court dismissed the defendant's claim against the defendant, and judged that the defendant's joint and several liability was not established on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the deed of this case stated as joint and several sureties, and that the defendant's creation of B was recognized under Eul 1, 2 and witness B, and that the defendant's act of unauthorized Representation was insufficient solely because interest, etc. was paid from the account in the name of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a)in the event that the authenticity of a seal imprint is recognized, the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established and the respondent bears the burden of proof as to the theft of the seal;

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the deed of this case on which the seal of the defendant is affixed, so there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the authenticity of the deed

In addition, the judgment of the first instance court is false.