1. The Defendant’s sale of the attached real estate to the Plaintiff is based on June 15, 2014.

On June 15, 2014, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the defendant to purchase the attached real estate in the form of KRW 42.5 million.

On the other hand, the defendant left a seal imprint for the problem of division of inherited property, and the plaintiff prepared a sales contract (No. A2) without the defendant's consent or approval, and claimed that the above seal imprint was affixed.

If the authenticity of the signature affixed to the document as to whether the authenticity of the document No. 2 is made, unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document is prepared, unless there are special circumstances. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, such presumption may no longer be maintained where it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made without being based on the will of the person other than the person in whose name the document is

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da24770 delivered on March 10, 1995, etc.). The Defendant recognized the fact that the stamp image attached to the name of the sales contract No. 2 was based on his/her own seal, and thus, the above sales contract is presumed to have been duly formed by the Defendant’s intent in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

However, there is no evidence to reverse the presumption of the formation of the authenticity, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

As long as the formation of a disposition document as a judgment on the cause of a claim is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with its contents, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of the statement.

(Supreme Court Decision 89Meu19153 delivered on March 27, 1990). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant comprehensively take account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2 admitted to be authentic.