1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of "the next 2. Additional Judgment" as to the plaintiff's argument added in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff set the account number entered at the bottom of the original loan certificate and copied and submitted it, the copy of the loan certificate (No. 1) submitted by the plaintiff is inadmissible.

The submission of a document shall be made with the original, original, or certified copy. Thus, the submission of evidence by only a simple copy shall not be the original, original, or certified copy, and in principle, the submission of evidence shall be unlawful as a matter of principle because there is no assurance of accuracy, and where there is a dispute as to the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and where there is an objection against the other party as to the substitution of the original copy (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da48667, Mar. 8, 196). However, even in a document where there is no original document, if the document is electronically copied at least a document that exists in the past, the existence of the original and the establishment of the authentic copy may be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da35540 delivered on December 22, 1992, see Supreme Court Decision 91Da35540 delivered on December 22, 1992). According to the overall purport of the statement and oral argument as to No. 3, the defendant also submitted the same loan certificate as evidence, and even according to the defendant's assertion, it can be recognized that the contents in the copy submitted by the plaintiff are identical to those in the original, but the account number in the original is omitted. Thus, since the original of the loan certificate is recognized to have existed in the past, subparagraph 1, which was taken by electronic means, can be recognized as having established the existence and authenticity of the original

If so, No. 1 No.