1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 76,00,000 as well as 24% per annum from May 1, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document under subparagraph 1-1-1 is the seal affixed to the document, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the establishment of the seal imprint, that is, the act of affixing the seal was made based on the will of the person who prepared the document, and once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the person who asserts that the document is forged must prove that the document is forged is affixed against the will of the person who signed the document actively.

(B) In a case where the authenticity of the seal imprinted with the document affixed on February 5, 2002 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da720296, Apr. 8, 2003; 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009) is actually presumed to be based on the will of the person who prepared the document, barring any special circumstances, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established. Once the authenticity of the seal imprinted is presumed to be established, the entire document is presumed to have been established. However, if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was conducted by a person other than the person who prepared the document, the document presenter is liable to prove that the act of affixing the seal was based on a legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 2003; 2009Da37811, Sept. 1, 201).

Therefore, it is true that the act of sealing C is based on the legitimate title delegated by the defendant who is the title holder.