1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On April 2007, the Plaintiff, instead of being reimbursed for the Defendant’s credit against C on or around April 2007, provided that the Defendant’s credit amount of KRW 20 million with the Defendant’s credit amount of KRW 20 million with the Plaintiff’s credit amount of KRW 20 million with the Defendant’s credit amount of KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant’s credit amount of the loan amount of KRW 30,000,000, and provided to C with a written public notice. On April 20, 2007, C received a written notice of payment from the Defendant from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant payment note”). As such, the Plaintiff submitted the written notice of payment in this case as evidence

B. The stamp image of the Defendant’s letter of payment in this case is stamped by D, one of his children, without his consent, and the Plaintiff voluntarily stated the contents, and thus, he has no obligation to the Plaintiff.

In addition, C paid the Plaintiff the total amount of the initial payment that was converted into the obligation of the instant note of payment.

2. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a written judgment is the seal affixed to the seal affixed to the name holder, barring any special circumstance, the establishment of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been made based on the will of the name holder, i.e., the act of affixing the seal. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). In a case where the authenticity of the seal imprints is recognized, the circumstances such as the first signing of the document at the time when the whole or part of the document was not completed shall be deemed to fall under this case. Therefore, in order to presume the authenticity of the document as the completion document

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406 delivered on April 11, 2003, etc.). In addition, in the letter of payment submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff until December 31, 2007, the stamp image in the name of the Defendant is affixed.