A. The Plaintiff C sold to the Defendant the purchase price of KRW 327 million in total, 104, 402, 501, and 502 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant three units”) 104, 402, 502, and 502 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). The Defendant paid KRW 276 million out of the purchase price.

C Since the Plaintiff transferred the purchase price claim to the Defendant and notified the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the remaining purchase price of KRW 51 million and the delayed payment damages.

B. Defendant (1) only allowed F to use the name of the Defendant upon F’s request that it is necessary for the sale of the instant loan, but not directly concluded a sales contract for the instant building. The Plaintiff was aware that only lent the name of the Defendant, and that the actual purchaser was F.

(2) A sales contract (No. 1-3) submitted by the Plaintiff to prove the conclusion of the Defendant’s sales contract is not written by the Defendant, but a loan certificate (No. 2) submitted by the Defendant to prove a pre-sale agreement of the Defendant, which is signed and sealed by the Defendant, is not written according to the Defendant’s intent, because the Plaintiff or F voluntarily supplemented the content in blank, on which the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s seal.

2. Determination

A. Whether the authenticity of the evidence No. 1-1-3 and the evidence No. 2-1 (1) is established, the defendant acknowledged that the defendant allowed F to enter into a sales contract for the building of this case in the name of the defendant, and the evidence No. 1-3 (sales Contract) was prepared according to the defendant's commission.

As such, the authenticity is recognized.

(2) If the authenticity of the portion of the seal imprint is recognized, the document may be presumed to have been signed and sealed by the person under whose name the document was completed, unless there are other special circumstances.