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. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant’s husband C, who is the Defendant’s husband, as of March 6, 2015, with the due date fixed on March 6, 2015.

B. On February 6, 2015, C prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate (Evidence A; hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) and a loan agreement (Evidence A; hereinafter “the loan agreement of this case”) to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s name, resident registration number, and mobile phone number are indicated in the guarantor column of the cash delivery certificate of this case and the loan agreement of this case, and the Defendant’s seal is affixed to the Defendant’s name.

C. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff received a copy of the Defendant’s driver’s license and a certificate of personal seal impression from C.

C On July 6, 2015, on the part of the Plaintiff, a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (No. 745, 2015, No. 2015, No. 745, 2015, hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) was prepared and executed on August 6, 2015, which is KRW 16,90,000,000, and KRW 8,900,000 on the part of the Plaintiff with due date and due date, and KRW 25% on October 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (the defendant asserts that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 were forged, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant’s assertion that the writing of the cash storage certificate of this case and the guarantor column of the loan agreement of this case is not the Defendant, and the Defendant’s stamp image affixed on the cash storage certificate of this case and the loan agreement of this case is not explicitly asserted that the Defendant’s stamp image is not by the Defendant’s seal; ② there is no evidence to prove that other person than the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s seal on the cash storage certificate of this case and the loan agreement of this case; ③ the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s driver’