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. Basic facts

A. Around 2000, the Plaintiff married with D (former E) his/her father, the Defendant’s father, but divorced around 201.

B. On April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 9,000,000 in the account under the name of the mother, at the time.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Eul-1's statement, purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 9,00,000 to the defendant at an annual interest rate of 24% per annum, and the due date of payment on July 31, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "lease Date"). The plaintiff alleged that the loan was made on July 31, 2008 in the complaint of this case, but the defendant alleged that the loan was made on April 13, 2017 in the defendant's written rebuttals on the appeal of April 13, 2017, and that the loan was made on April 30, 2007). The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 9,00,000,000 and delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion that the above KRW 9,00,000,000 was donated to the defendant as a living expense. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim in this case.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s assertion as above is genuine, as the disposition document of the loan agreement of this case, A(the certificate of tea) and A2(the certificate of tea) supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion.

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprinted is based on the intention of the holder of the title deed, i.e., the creation of the authenticity of the seal imprinted is de facto presumed. Thus, if a person who disputes the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal pursuant to the intention of the holder of the title deed was made, the presumption of the authenticity of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667, Sept. 26, 2014). With respect to the instant case, the Health Unit, A1, and B.