beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order to pay to the defendant C.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was lent KRW 11.9 million to the defendants around December 26, 2009. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. The only evidence as shown in the plaintiff's argument as to the claim against the defendant B is that there is evidence No. 1, such as the annexed sheet (the amount of KRW 11,90,000,000,000,000,000 without setting the loan certificate or the due date; hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), and the name of the defendants is stated in the debtor column of the above loan certificate with the same pen, and each seal of the defendants is affixed. As such, it is examined whether the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case is established or not.
If the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed, on which the seal imprinted, is affixed, is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprinted is actual presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of a title deed, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprinted is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the court proves circumstances that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent
In addition, in view of the fact that the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the contents of the document should be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that the authenticity of the document is recognized, it should be careful in estimating the authenticity of the document by the seal of the person who prepared the document.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667, Sept. 26, 2014). Examining the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the health unit and the following circumstances, the instant case is deemed as follows.