1. The judgment subject to review and the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff (defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

3. Re-examination.

1. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, is against C’s net D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(1) The loan extended amounting to KRW 70,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

2) The acquisition of the instant money by transfer (hereinafter “instant money”).

A) The Defendant asserted that he succeeded to the deceased’s obligation, and filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of KRW 70,000,000 and damages for delay thereof. The issues in the lawsuit are whether to borrow money from the deceased, and the issue in the lawsuit is whether to borrow money from C and the name of C and the deceased, a disposal document, as of January 16, 2010, as of June 15, 2010 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

The authenticity of the petition was established.

The judgment of the court of first instance acknowledged the authenticity of the deceased’s seal imprint and the seal imprint affixed on the loan certificate of this case, the date of issuance of the above seal imprint was immediately prior to the date on which the loan certificate of this case was made, the fact that the deceased was directly issued with the seal imprint E and C, thereby recognizing the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case, and rejected the defendant’s defense of forgery of the loan of this case without any evidence. Ultimately, the plaintiff accepted the claim against the defendant of this case in whole.

Although the Defendant appealed against this, the judgment subject to a review is recognized as identical to the seal, and according to the witness E’s testimony, the deceased affixed the seal of this case, and thus, the authenticity is recognized. The Defendant’s forged defense was dismissed on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the forgery of the loan certificate of this case solely based on the fact that F, living together with the deceased, was indicted for the suspicion that he stolen the deceased’s seal imprint, etc., and C lent KRW 70,000,000 to the deceased, by taking account of the evidence, such as the record of the loan certificate of this case, witness E, and testimony, which is a disposal document, and the Plaintiff loaned it from C