A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 (a) (a certificate for rent and joint and several sureties’s name is presumed to have been authentic in the entire document because the seal affixed by the defendant’s name does not conflict with the defendant’s seal, and thus, the defendant is presumed to have been authentic in the entire document. Accordingly, according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments as to evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and No. 5 (a) and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiff, etc.”) and the appointed party C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiff, etc.”) set and lent KRW 25 million to D on March 4, 2009 as the due date for payment, May 4, 2009 and interest rate (24% per annum), and the defendant may recognize the fact that he jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to the plaintiff

B. On the other hand, the judgment on the alteration of forgerys is made. On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) organized the legal relationship of the Republic of Korea budget E and six parcels owned by the Defendant and sold the above land; and (b) sold the Defendant’s seal impression and a certificate of seal impression; (c) D arbitrarily affixed a seal impression on the Defendant’s name and side of the above loan certificate (Evidence A No. 1).

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression was issued by delegation of the defendant prior to the preparation of the above loan certificate. According to the defendant's assertion, Eul borrowed money from plaintiff et al. from the plaintiff et al. and charged the defendant with the defendant by stealing the name of the defendant as the borrower or the joint guarantor, and the amount of the loan and the amount of the joint and several liability exceeds KRW 300 million including the above loan certificate. The defendant did not ask Eul for liability for forging private documents, etc. until the date of the closing of argument in this case. The defendant seems to be well aware of the legal measures against misappropriation by a person who has worked for a long time in the office of a certified judicial scrivener, and the defendant as the defendant