beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the facts without a dispute over the basic facts, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement of No. 1 and the testimony of the witness C, it is recognized that C borrowed KRW 40,000,000 from the Plaintiff on January 4, 2008, the due date for repayment was set by March 31, 2008, and signed the Defendant’s seal imprint certificate living together at the time of the guarantor column and issued the Plaintiff with the same loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
The loan certificate (Evidence 1) CD E BF G of this case
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. On January 4, 2008, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt on the loan certificate of this case to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claim.
B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint affixed to the document of judgment is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal based on the will of the person who prepared the document, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been created pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the presumption that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document is de facto presumed. As such, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprints is based on the will of the person who signed the document is actually presumed. Thus, if the person who disputes the authenticity of the seal imprints proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal imprints is based on the will of the person who signed the document or that the above act of affixing the seal is carried out by the person other than the person who signed the document, the person who signed the document bears the burden
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 2003). The health care unit back to the instant case, and the stamp image next to the Defendant’s name stated in the guarantor column among the loan certificates in this case, are the Defendant.