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 follows. The court's reasoning of this case is as follows: the extension of the credit transaction agreement dated May 25, 2009 and the extension of the credit extension period and the extension of the credit extension period as of November 25, 2009, each of the joint and several surety of the defendant's application for the change of conditions, shall be determined as follows; the defendant's assertion in the trial is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgment to the corresponding part, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that each Defendant’s joint and several surety of this case’s credit transaction agreement as of May 25, 2009 and the extension of credit extension period and the application for change of conditions as of November 25, 2009 (the above Gap evidence No. 3) were forged.

If the authenticity of a holder’s seal affixed on a private document is reproduced by his/her seal, barring special circumstances, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal shall be presumed to have been made, i.e., the formation of the authenticity of the document, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, since the presumption that the authenticity of the seal is based on the intent of the holder of the title to make the document is de facto presumed, the presumption that the act of affixing the seal is based on the intention of the holder of the title to make the document, the presumption of the authenticity shall be broken if the person who disputes the authenticity of the seal

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da684, Aug. 24, 1982; 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). As to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the seal affixed to the health unit and the column of each joint and several sureties was affixed with the seal of the Defendant, and thus, the said seal was presumed to have been affixed with the Defendant’s intent, and therefore, the said seal was established with the entirety of the joint and several suretiess.