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 this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The defendant asserts that the defendant's resident registration number, name, and address were written in blank as the plaintiff's deposit confirmation usage, and that the plaintiff arbitrarily prepared the remaining parts, thereby altering Gap's evidence No. 3 (Agreement).

A private document is presumed to be authentic when the signature, seal, or seal affixed by the person or his/her agent is affixed with the signature, seal, or seal affixed to the private document. Thus, in cases where the originator of the private document recognizes that the signature, seal, or seal affixed to the private document was affixed by himself/herself, in other cases, barring any special circumstances, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, and in cases where the authenticity of the seal imprint portion, etc. is recognized, unless there are other special circumstances, the document is presumed to have been signed, sealed, or affixed by the person who prepared the document under the circumstances where the entire document is completed, and the circumstance that the document was first signed and sealed only when the whole or part of the document was not completed. Therefore, in order to reverse the presumption of the authenticity of the completed document, there is a need for reasonable

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590 delivered on October 14, 1994). Under the above legal principle, the Defendant’s authenticity of the establishment of the Defendant’s signature in the document No. 3 (contest) is recognized. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above written agreement shall be presumed to have been signed by the Defendant in the state where the entire was completed. The circumstance that the Defendant asserted that it was a complete document is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant signed in blank by following the presumption of the establishment of the authenticity as the complete document as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. The judgment of the first instance court in conclusion.