1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Plaintiff’s assertion

B entered into an exchange transaction agreement with EL branch card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EL branch card”) on December 31, 2002 under the Defendant’s joint and several guarantee. On January 31, 2015, the amount of debt to be repaid by B as of January 31, 2015 reaches KRW 11,617,477 and overdue interest KRW 31,883,335 and KRW 43,50,812.

On June 30, 2003, under the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, the El branch card transferred the above claims to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and around that time, notified B of the transfer of the above claims.

In addition, on May 13, 2005, the Korea Asset Management Corporation transferred the above claim against B to the Plaintiff on May 13, 2005 under the Asset Transfer Agreement and the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and notified B of the transfer of the above claim.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 17% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of KRW 43,500,812, and KRW 11,617,47, which is the principal, from February 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Judgment

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the document was affixed is affixed, unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is created, i.e., the act of affixing the stamp image is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, if it is confirmed that the act of affixing the stamp is carried out by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written, the person in whose name the document was affixed shall bear the burden of proving that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 delivered on April 8, 2003). In light of the above legal principles, according to the health care unit and evidence No. 1 written on September 27, 2002, B as to the instant case.