1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In the application for payment order, the Plaintiff leased KRW 70 million to the Defendant on July 22, 2013, setting the period of KRW 70 million on October 22, 2013, and KRW 200,000,000,000 from August 1, 2013.

After asserting that “Around February 17, 2008, to June 1, 2009, lent KRW 75 million to C and received KRW 5 million.” Since then, C did not complete the payment, and the Defendant agreed to complete the payment of KRW 70 million.”

The defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, did not prepare a loan certificate or a certificate of personal seal impression, and even if the debt is recognized, C paid all of them.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to pay money solely on the basis of each of the items of evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6, as follows: (a) lack of evidence to acknowledge the authenticity (the statement No. 4) (the Defendant’s mother, without the Defendant’s consent, prepared the above loan certificate and affixed the Defendant’s seal impression), and (b) lack of evidence to prove that the Defendant agreed to pay money.

The plaintiff asserts that as long as the defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression, he/she should bear the responsibility of expression agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant granted C the right of representation for the preparation, etc. of the above loan certificate, and the Plaintiff voluntarily asked C to lend money from the preparatory document dated June 30, 2017, stating that “C borrowed money and then the Defendant affixed a seal imprint directly on his name.” However, there is no ground to acknowledge the responsibility for the expression agency under the above provision in this case where C does not accept such assertion.

Plaintiff

The claim is dismissed.