1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant (appointed party) in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid:

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. We examine whether the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 1 (S., hereinafter referred to as "the instant letter of payment") has been made.

The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established because there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the appointed party C (hereinafter “Appointed C”) prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff and the fact that the name of the Defendant (Appointed Party) was the Defendant (Appointed Party).

The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted that the name of the appointed party C is different from the name of the appointed party C’s corporate seal impression, and that the name of the appointed party prior to the Defendant (Appointed Party) changed the original “joint guarantor” by means of copying after partially misunderstanding the evidence No. 1-5 of the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant (Appointed Party) alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Defendant (Appointed Party) was forged or altered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, in light of the fact that Defendant (Appointed Party)’s evidence Nos. 1-5 submitted by Defendant (Appointed Party) as the original letter of payment and the original letter of payment Nos. 1-5 was accurately different and the size of letters and letters Nos. 1-1-5, and thus, it is impossible to easily accept the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion that Defendant (Appointed Party) made Nos. 1-1-1-1-2, and Defendant (Appointed Party) filed a criminal complaint with the Plaintiff by means of alteration of private documents, etc., but was subject to a disposition of suspicion, and the appeal was filed, and was again subject to a disposition of suspicion, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant (Appointed Party) prepared A-1-2 and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1 as to the instant case, the appointed party C as the primary debtor, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) as a joint and several surety, pays KRW 6 million up to March 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2015.

“The Defendant (Appointed Party) may recognize the fact that the letter of payment was prepared and delivered, barring any special circumstance.