1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the witness in Part 3, 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as witness in Part 3, and the part in Part 5, 5, and 16, 5, and 16, 5, 5, and 16, 5, 5, and 16 (c) shall be deemed as follows; therefore, except for each height like the part, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

A person shall be appointed.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the authenticity of the cash tea of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that C and the Defendant had a close relation between high school, and thus, C and C had the Defendant’s prior approval on the use of the seal. 2) In the event that the stamp image affixed on the document is displayed by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image is established, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the name of the preparing person’s intent, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, the entire document shall be presumed to have been authentic.

However, such presumption, however, is broken if it is revealed that the act of sealing was done by a person other than the person under whose name the document was prepared, so the person under whose name the document was affixed is responsible to prove that the act was made by a legitimate title delegated by the person under whose name

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 Decided April 8, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). In full view of the facts acknowledged as above 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6-2, and witness C and witness E of the first instance trial, the overall purport of the pleadings is recognized, and the following circumstances are examined in light of the above legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the defendant granted C the right to prepare the cash car certificate of this case using his seal and seal impression for the purpose of joint and several sureties.

① The cash custody certificate of this case is on the part of the Plaintiff.