1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 15, 2005, the Plaintiff determined 100 million won as interest rate of 2% per month to the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to borrow KRW 100 million from the plaintiff and did not receive KRW 100 million from the plaintiff.

2. As to the authenticity of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2(a) and 2(a), Gap evidence Nos. 3(a), Gap evidence Nos. 4(a) and Gap evidence Nos. 10(a) and Gap evidence Nos. 52(a) are examined.

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint 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 by the court is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the

(2) In light of the fact that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence and content of an expression of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied, in recognition of the authenticity of the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666 Decided September 6, 2002, etc.). The defendant asserts that although the defendant's seal on each of the above documentary evidence is recognized by his own seal, it is not his own seal, and even if the defendant's husband C affixed it, the defendant does not agree.

The following circumstances shall be taken into account: