2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff holds a loan certificate dated November 27, 2008 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating that the borrower is the Defendant, D, B, E, and the loan amount of KRW 50 million. The loan certificate of this case bears the Defendant’s seal impression affixed, and the Defendant’s seal impression is accompanied.

B. D is the Defendant’s father, B, and E’s white parents.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, the existing evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that E obtained a legitimate power of representation from the Defendant.

Even if it is not so, the loan certificate of this case contains the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression attached to the loan certificate of this case, and E operates a restaurant under the name of the business owner at the time of the operation of the restaurant, the defendant can be deemed to have indicated the plaintiff the right of representation on the preparation of the loan certificate of this case to E. The plaintiff prepared the loan certificate of this case with the belief that E has obtained legitimate power of representation from the defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million stated in the loan certificate of this case.

3. Determination

A. The loan certificate of this case contains the Defendant’s seal imprint and the Defendant’s seal imprint affixed thereto. However, on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the respective entries and arguments in Eul’s 1 through 3, namely, the Defendant appears to have resided together with white parents B and E due to difficult family circumstances, and Eul reported the Defendant to the Tax Office in the official name as the business owner when operating a restaurant with the trade name “G” in the Namyang-si F from April 2008. At the time of preparation of the loan certificate of this case, the Defendant was under the age of 21, the Defendant was under the age of 21, and the Defendant appears to have recorded a conversation with Eul on November 14, 2017, a record which appears to have been recorded with the Defendant without the Defendant’s permission.