On the other hand, since the defendant recognizes that he had affixed his seal on the above loan certificate on the first day for pleading of the first instance court, it is presumed that the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1 is established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act

However, as long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da52087, May 12, 2016). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff, on January 6, 2014, determined and lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant at interest rate of 1% per month and February 28, 2014.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant is not the defendant but the defendant's representative director C's above loan certificate. Thus, the defendant's above loan certificate is not the debtor.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 as well as the overall purport of video and pleadings, the representative director of C at the time of the above loan was not the defendant as D, and the defendant’s seal affixed to the loan certificate is the personal seal of the defendant, and the defendant’s seal affixed to C’s corporate seal, separate from the defendant’s seal affixed to the above loan certificate, and it is recognized that the defendant stated that the defendant received money from the plaintiff at the date of the first instance trial to use it for the company’s operating fund, it is sufficient to recognize the defendant as the borrower of the above money as the above loan party.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s loan amounting to KRW 20,000 and KRW 20,000.