1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except where the defendant added the following determination as to the defendant’s additional assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 제1심 판결서 제3쪽 아래에서 3째 줄 말미에 다음과 같은 판단을 추가한다.

The Defendant asserted that at the preparatory date for pleading No. 1 of the first instance trial of the instant case, the said evidence No. 1 was stated as “not recognized, or not recorded,” and that it did not acknowledge the authenticity thereof.

However, barring any special circumstance, if the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is affixed with his/her seal, the authenticity of the seal imprint shall be presumed, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da94728, Aug. 22, 2013). Therefore, even though the Defendant cannot acknowledge the authenticity of the said evidence A at the date for preparatory pleading of the first instance trial of the instant case, the Defendant cannot acknowledge the authenticity

Even if it was argued to the purport that the defendant's representative director C was aware by the same date's protocol that the defendant's seal affixed to the above evidence No. 1 is due to the defendant's employee seal impression, and as long as it is recognized that B has the right to represent the defendant as a business relationship with the defendant and there is no counter-proof, this constitutes a judicial confession as to the authenticity of the seal imprint or the authenticity of the seal imprint, so there is no impediment to the presumption of the authenticity of the whole evidence No. 1.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the above evidence No. 1 does not accompany the certificate of personal seal impression of the defendant or defendant representative director, and thus its validity cannot be recognized. However, the above evidence No. 1 is authentic merely because the certificate of personal seal impression is not attached.