beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing the reasoning by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant denies the authenticity of the stamp image affixed to the Defendant’s name of each of the instant cash custody certificates, and the Defendant was in the position to obtain a return of KRW 14,00,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff by deceiving C, and thus there is no reason to prepare each of the instant cash custody certificates with the purport that the Plaintiff shall be returned in full. On July 28, 2012, the date when each of the instant cash custody certificates is to be considered as the date when the Defendant was appointed the legal representative to prepare for the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the authenticity of each of the instant cash custody certificates was established on the ground that there was no reason to prepare the document disadvantageous to the Defendant.
In light of the circumstances duly explained by the first instance court, the result of the appraisal by the appraiserJ of the first instance court on each of the cash custody certificates of this case also shows that the stamp image affixed to the defendant's name and the defendant's name are the same as the stamp image affixed to the loan certificate of this case (No. 11), the written agreement (No. 15), and the loan certificate of April 16, 2012 (related case No. 9) written by the defendant around May 11, 2006, which recognized the authenticity in the litigation of the other case between the plaintiff and the defendant (hereinafter "related case"), and the fact that it is judged that the stamp image affixed to the defendant's name and the defendant's name are the same as the stamp image affixed to the loan certificate of this case of this case (related case No. 15). Thus, it is presumed that the defendant's each of the cash custody certificates of this case was actually signed and sealed by the defendant.
In addition, the evidence presented by the defendant alone is difficult to view that the claim of KRW 14,00,000 that the defendant paid to the plaintiff was caused by C's deception, and it is also difficult to view it as nonexistent.