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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In a case where the authenticity of evidence No. 1 (Evidence) is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intention pursuant to the contents of the document should be acknowledged, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement.

In addition, there are no special restrictions on the method of proving the authenticity of private documents, but the method of proof must be reliable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317, Nov. 26, 2015). The Defendant asserts that “the Defendant’s signature was forged on the following grounds.”

However, in full view of the results of written appraisal and the purport of the whole argument of the party appraiser C, the defendant's signature stated in the loan certificate seems to be the same as the defendant's written statement.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the authenticity of the loan certificate was presumed to have been established, and that “D, the husband of the defendant, forged the defendant’s signature.”

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Since the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Evidence) is recognized, the Defendant is recognized to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff on December 24, 2014, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the entries in the loan certificate.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 2,00,000 won as the guaranteed obligation and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order order in this case, as the repayment date of the above loan debt.

2. The Defendant asserts that “D had already repaid the Plaintiff KRW 2,00,000 on December 24, 2014.”

The evidence No. 2, which was prepared by D, the debtor of the above loan, and the husband of the defendant.