1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant (appointed party) and the appointed parties are jointly and severally with the plaintiff KRW 19,60,000.

The plaintiff asserted that around August 10, 201, the plaintiff lent KRW 24 million to the defendant (appointed party, hereinafter "the defendant") and the designated parties stand joint and several sureties, and the defendant and the designated parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 19.6 million, excluding the principal repaid by the defendant among the above KRW 24 million, and interest and delay damages.

As to this, the Defendant and the designated parties claim that, although the Defendant borrowed money from the previous bond company C, the Defendant repaid it in full, and that there was no money borrowed from the Plaintiff.

Judgment

A private document is presumed to be authentic when the signature, seal, or seal of the person or his/her agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where it is acknowledged that the person who prepared the private document voluntarily signs, affixes, or affixes his/her seal to the private document, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by counter-proof. In cases where the authenticity, such as a seal imprint, is recognized, the document shall be presumed to have been signed, sealed, or affixed by the person who prepared the document under the condition that the entire document is completed, unless there are other special circumstances, and the circumstances such as the fact that the person who signed and sealed the document was first signed and sealed at the time when the whole or part of the document was completed shall be deemed to belong to this example. Therefore, if the person who prepared the private document seeks to verify the authenticity of the document as a complete document, reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406 Decided April 11, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2011Da62977 Decided November 10, 201, etc.). We examine the following: (a) if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each of the statements on evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Plaintiff’s 24 million won to the Defendant around August 10, 201.