1. The primary Defendant is KRW 60,000,000 and 15% per annum for the Plaintiff from May 29, 2018 to the day of full payment.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. The summary of the case and the key issue are as follows: (a) Pursuant to No. 1 (Evidence) with the seal affixed by the primary defendant, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 60,000,000 on the loan certificate and delay damages therefrom against the primary defendant; and (b) the primary defendant claimed that the loan certificate of this case was written by the primary defendant, who is instead of the principal's intent, regardless of the principal's intention.

B. 1) Determination 1) If the seal affixed to the signature affixed to a document is affixed by his seal, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal was based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, the authenticity of the document is presumed in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu6815, Apr. 25, 1989; 94Da2470, Mar. 10, 1995). The fact that the seal affixed to the seal affixed to the loan was affixed by the seal affixed to the principal and the fact that the seal affixed to the seal affixed to the principal is affixed by the seal affixed to the principal and the fact that the seal affixed to the second and third evidence was affixed without any dispute between the parties, while it is insufficient to deem that the act of affixing the above seal was done by the principal and the principal and the principal’s primary intent, as alleged by the Defendant.

Before the preparation of the loan certificate of this case, the plaintiff received a request from the preliminary defendant that the primary defendant who is the husband can confirm the amount of the loan, and the plaintiff sent the preliminary defendant with the photograph of No. 1 attached.