1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On January 20, 2006, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on the basis of the interest rate of KRW 3% per month and April 20, 2006. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages.

B. The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and the husband C borrowed money from the Plaintiff and provided the Plaintiff with a loan certificate in the name of the Plaintiff.

C The extinctive prescription of the borrowed money was completed, or C repaid to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2007, and terminated.

2. Determination

A. As evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence No. 1-1 is examined as to whether the appeal is made or not.

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint 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, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprinted is based on the intention of the holder of the title deed, i.e., the creation of the authenticity of the seal imprinted is de facto presumed. Thus, if a person who disputes the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal pursuant to the intention of the holder of the title deed was made, the presumption of the authenticity of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667, Sept. 26, 2014). Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant’s seal affixed to the health room and the No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1 is based on the Defendant’s seal, the authenticity of No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1 is presumed to be established. Meanwhile, according to the purport of the entries and arguments in No. 1-2 and the whole pleadings, the above Defendant’s seal impression is recognized to have been affixed and sealed by the Defendant, who is not the Defendant himself/herself, and thus, the actual presumption of the authenticity of No. 1-2 is broken.

Therefore, A No. 1-1-3.