A. The Plaintiff, through D, lent KRW 90 million to Defendant B, and Defendant B promised to sell the F apartment in lots and repay the loan around April 19, 2013. However, despite the Plaintiff’s demand for repayment, the loan still has not been repaid.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 90 million and damages for delay.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 90 million to Defendant B via D, and that Defendant B used the said money to the Plaintiff as the business fund of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), which was delegated by the Defendant C, and thus, the Plaintiff sold the F apartment No. 1 and 306 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Busan City E, and thus, the Plaintiff intended to sell the said money to the Plaintiff and repay the said loan at the price. To secure this, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a sales contract (Evidence No. 1).

Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the above loans and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, the part of the Defendant C among the evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the Defendant C’s seal impression only with the statement No. 4, and it cannot be used as evidence since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, as to the evidence No. 2 of this case, the submission of the document must be the original, and the submission of evidence by only a simple copy, not the original, is inappropriate in principle as there is no guarantee of accuracy. Thus, if there is dispute as to the existence and establishment authenticity of the original and the other party raises an objection against it for the substitution of the original copy, the submission of the document cannot be substituted by a copy.

Supreme Court on June 2015