1. The Plaintiffs’ commitment prohibition obligation based on the agreement dated May 13, 2016 against the Defendant does not exist.

1. The parties' assertion

A. In the plaintiffs' assertion and the defendant's name, the defendant's agreement on May 13, 2016 (hereinafter "the agreement of this case") was prepared on the part of the defendant's defendant to jointly and severally pay the above debts to the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the defendant of the 243522 Babru (hereinafter "the above agreement of this case") was prepared without the plaintiffs' representative director's consent, and even if the above agreement is valid, the defendant of the defendant's agreement of this case did not establish the agreement of this case.

B. The defendant's argument of this case is prepared by B, who is an employee of the representative director of the plaintiffs, and is effective for the plaintiffs. Since the funds of this case are attracting to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are obligated to pay one billion won to the defendant under the above agreement.

2. If the stamp image of the person signing the document affixed on the judgment is affixed with his seal, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed, barring special circumstances, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, such presumption shall no longer be maintained if it is revealed that the act of affixing the stamp image was done without being based on the will of the person other than the person signing the document.