1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Both parties asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant on December 10, 2010, and KRW 70,000,000 on December 28, 2010 to the Defendant respectively by setting the interest rate of KRW 3% per month and due date of payment on July 30, 2012, and that the Defendant did not borrow the above amount.

2. Facts and determination

A. As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the authenticity of Gap’s certificate Nos. 1, 7, and 9 (the loan certificate of KRW 150 million on December 28, 2010, respectively, KRW 80 million on December 10, 2012, KRW 150 million on December 31, 2010, KRW 150 million on December 31, 2010, and KRW 150 million on the loan certificate of this case, etc. (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

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

In addition, considering the fact that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that the content of the document is denied, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized, it shall be careful in estimating the authenticity of the disposal document by the seal of the person under whose name the document was prepared, and in particular, it shall be more true if it is proved that the holder of the disposal document was delegated by the person under whose name the document was signed by his/her duties or by

B. The above evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 9 are affixed to disputes between the Plaintiff, C, D, and the Defendant, E, and F, respectively.