1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the court of the first instance, citing the first instance court's reasoning, i.e., 3 pages 1 to 2 of the first instance judgment, and i., e., prepared “the documents prepared.” (b) each of the instant documents, which include the remaining Defendants, as Defendant B's family members, indicated that they jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B's obligations against the Plaintiff; and (c) except adding the following judgments, the following grounds for the first instance judgment are the same as that for the first instance judgment.

(4) If the authenticity of the seal is actually presumed to be based on the will of the person who prepared the seal, unless there are special circumstances, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to be established, unless there are special circumstances.

However, the above presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person under whose name the document was prepared, so the person under whose name the document was signed shall be responsible to prove that the act of affixing the seal was made by a legitimate title delegated by the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686 Decided April 8, 2003). In light of the above legal principles, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant's address and name are stated in the column for joint and several surety of evidence No. 3, and that the following stamp image of the defendant's name is based on the defendant's seal imprint, but according to the overall purport of testimony and pleading by the witness C of the trial court, the joint and several surety of each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the of this case is acknowledged to have been completed by the defendant's father C and the defendant's seal imprint is affixed. The presumption of the establishment of the authenticity of each of the of the of the of the of the of this cases has already been broken. Thus, the plaintiff