1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 86,350,719 and KRW 83,142,068 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) from November 2, 2017.

1. Formation of the authenticity of the loan certificate as of February 11, 201 (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”)

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (1) withdraw their assertion that the establishment of the authenticity of the instant loan certificate made by the Defendant in the Defendant’s Answer.

Since the loan certificate of this case was made by C from the defendant's representative director to be dismissed on December 12, 2011, the recognition of the authenticity is contrary to the truth.

In addition, since the defendant denied the loan obligation based on the loan certificate of this case in the reply, there is no evidence that the money equivalent to the loan certificate of this case was introduced into the defendant and used as the defendant's funds, and the former representative director C and the plaintiff asserted that the loan certificate of this case was made at will, the recognition of the authenticity is obvious error.

(2) The defendant voluntarily led to the establishment of the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case, and the plaintiff has invoked it as an interest, so the defendant cannot withdraw it at his own discretion.

B. (1) Determination is based on the authenticity of the document that the document was prepared on the basis of the will of a specific person alleged by the person asserting, and there is a formal proof of the document duly formed.

In other words, the authenticity of the document means that the document is prepared by the person who is alleged to be the author by the person who proves that the document is not forged or altered by another person.

A confession as to the formation of a document shall be made only when the confession as to the facts of assistance is made, but the withdrawal shall be treated the same as the withdrawal of a confession as to the facts of assistance, unlike the withdrawal of

Therefore, a party who recognized the authenticity of a document cannot freely withdraw it, and the same applies where the party recognized the authenticity of the seal affixed to the document and later withdrawn it.

(2) The defendant's representative director was dismissed on December 12, 201, without the authority of the representative director of the defendant. (3) The defendant's representative director was dismissed on December 12, 201.