1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On October 19, 201, the deceased deceased Party F, who claimed that the cause of the claim occurred, lent KRW 50,000,000 to the deceased deceased G on October 19, 201 by the due date for payment of KRW 1,10,00 to the deceased deceased G on December 11, 2012. The defendant is the deceased G's sole heir, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above loans to the deceased Party, who is the deceased F's heir, according to the deceased's inheritance shares.

Judgment

According to the reasoning of Gap evidence No. 1-1 (the loan certificate of this case; hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") and the written appraisal by the appraiser K of the first instance trial, since the penology of "G" recorded in the column for the name of the borrower of this case is recognized as identical to the penology of the net G, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established as to the remainder other than the relevant part of the joint and several sureties. The defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case of this case was forged, or that the net F was completed at will after the deceased of the network, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it), Gap evidence No. 11, and Eul evidence No. 12, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the written evidence No. 9, Oct. 19, 201, the fact that the net F used to pay 50,000,000 to the net G on October 24, 2012.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that the claim of this case by the plaintiffs is unjustifiable, since there is no evidence that the deceased G received KRW 50,000,000 from the net F at the time, even if it prepared the loan certificate of this case.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier, evidence Nos. 4 through 6, evidence Nos. 10 and evidence Nos. 10 through 14 (including various numbers), and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the net G with which LAS was operated from around 202.