The judgment below

The part against the counterclaim Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If a seal imprint affixed to a document is affixed by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been created. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person who prepared the document. In such a case, the person who submitted the document shall bear the burden of proving that the act of

(2) On September 24, 2009, the court below found that the part of the seal imprinted by the counter-defendant on the credit transaction agreement of November 24, 2009 and the credit transaction agreement of November 24, 2009 and the personal credit information provision, use and inquiry (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "credit transaction agreement of this case") entered in the name of the counter-defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "A") and the debtor Co-Counterclaim Defendant Co-Counterclaim Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Counterclaim Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "R") and the counter-defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Co."), and the part of the counter-defendant's seal imprinted to AM or his employee Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. under the credit transaction agreement of this case, the court below acknowledged the necessity of the signing of the credit transaction agreement of this case as evidence for the conclusion of the loan agreement of this case and its entire evidence.