대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant asserts that it is improper to hold the defendant liable for the guaranteed obligation on the ground that the defendant prepared the "Written Guarantee (Evidence No. 4-2)", but the date of preparation is not written, and Article 5 of the Special Agreement does not include the following parts, and it is not written by the defendant.
Whether to acknowledge the authenticity of a document shall be determined by free evaluation, based on the overall purport of all evidence and pleadings, by the court. In light of the fact that the authenticity of a document is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied if the authenticity is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the document must be recognized.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666 Decided September 6, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29254 Decided April 8, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 201Da29254 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the document’s “rest security”, which is a disposal document, was examined by the Defendant himself/herself, and the document was signed by the Defendant himself/herself, and thus, the entire document’s authenticity is recognized.
Therefore, in order to deny the authenticity of the above evidence, the defendant presented the evidence that could deny the content of the evidence, but only the defendant's assertion that the document was not written and that the document was not written by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to deny the authenticity of the above evidence.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with the contents of the letter of good faith.