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. The basic facts indicate that "I shall keep 15 million won in cash in May 2, 2005, and shall not return by December 31, 2005," in the cash custody certificate submitted by the Plaintiff (a evidence No. 1; hereinafter "the cash custody certificate of this case"), and that "I will hold a civil and criminal liability in case I will not return by December 31, 2005," and the defendant's address, name, and resident registration number is stated in the following part, and a seal is affixed next to it.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant borrowed 15 million won from the plaintiff on May 2, 2005 as stated in the cash custody certificate of this case with the due date specified on December 31, 2005. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the loan principal of 15 million won and damages for delay from January 1, 2006 to the due date of full payment, which is the day following the above due date of payment. 2) The plaintiff's argument is not the defendant's written and unmanneds stated in the cash custody certificate of this case, but the cash custody certificate of this case was falsely prepared, and the defendant does not borrow money from the plaintiff.

B. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to the relevant legal principles is the seal affixed to the nominal holder’s seal, barring special circumstances, the establishment of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been made based on the will of the nominal holder, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is presumed to have been made, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act, so the person who asserts that the document is forged need to prove that the document has been affixed against the will of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da684, Aug. 24, 1982; 2001Da72029, Feb. 25, 2002). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to recognition of the authenticity of the entire document in a case where the authenticity of the person under whose name the document was prepared by an unmanned appraisal is recognized as having been made with respect to the unmanned of the person under whose name the document was written.