1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

C, the actual representative of the Defendant, on December 1, 2012, borrowed KRW 55,00,000 from the Plaintiff as of March 10, 2012, with the due date set as of March 10, 2012, and prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said borrowed money to the Plaintiff.

On the basis of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion, there is a cash custody certificate (Evidence A 1) as direct evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, on December 1, 2012, Eul prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate confirming that 5,000,000 won should be paid to the plaintiff by March 10, 2012. The name of the above cash custody certificate "BD" is written under the name of "B", the defendant's seal impression is affixed to the name of "D", and the above cash custody certificate is accompanied by the defendant's seal impression issued on August 10, 201, and the fact that the defendant's representative director was D around December 1, 2012 is recognized.

On the other hand, if the stamp image of the person who prepared the document affixed the seal affixed to the document is affixed with his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal, based on the will of the person who prepared the document. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been established, the entire document shall be presumed to have been authentic. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was carried out by a person other than the person who prepared the document, the person who submitted the document

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, inasmuch as it is not the defendant's representative director D's seal impression affixed to the above cash custody certificate, the fact that C is not the defendant's representative director D is the plaintiff, it is the defendant's legal entity in the above cash custody certificate.