1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. According to the purport of Gap’s evidence No. 1 (the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute over the Defendant’s seal imprint portion) and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff determined and lent KRW 10,000,00 to C on April 1, 2010 as the due date for payment, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation.

The Defendant asserts that, while borrowing money from the Plaintiff, C affixed the amount of debt to the joint guarantor column of the cash custody certificate No. 1 (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”), the Defendant was aware of the amount of debt at KRW 5,000,000, and at the time of affixing the seal, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff, since it stated that the amount of the cash custody certificate of this case was a blank space, but at the same time the Plaintiff voluntarily stated that it was KRW 10,000,000.

A private document is presumed to be authentic when the signature, seal or seal affixed by the person or his/her agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). In cases where it is acknowledged that the person who prepared the private document voluntarily affixed his/her signature and seal on the private document concerned, i.e., where the formation of the stamp image section, etc. is recognized, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by counter-proof. In cases where the authenticity of the stamp image section, etc. is recognized, the document may be presumed to have affixed such signature and seal by the person who signed the document at the completion of the entire document, unless there are other special circumstances, and the document shall be deemed to have been signed and sealed by the person who signed the document at the time when the whole or part of the document was completed, and it shall be deemed that the document is part of this case where there is a prior signature and seal affixed

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590 delivered on October 14, 1994, etc.).