1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is the defendant's successor intervenor 12,357,571 won and 11,568.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 10, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a loan application/agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff lends KRW 12 million (2.9% per annum, interest rate per annum, and 29% per annum) to the Defendant as a fund for the purchase of the second class vehicle (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. As of June 1, 2012, the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 12,357,571 in total (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 11,568,433 and KRW 789,138).

C. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant loan claim to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. As to the claim for the loan of this case by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the defendant asserts that the signature and seal of the loan agreement of this case are not the defendant, but the defendant did not have any signature and seal so that it cannot be complied with.

B. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a document is the seal affixed to the document, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the act of affixing the seal was based on the will of the person in whose name the document was prepared. On the other hand, if the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, it shall be presumed that the document was authentic in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the person who asserts that the document was forged shall prove that the document was forged, actively against the will of the person in whose name the

(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, except as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

According to the fact-finding reply to the above evidence and the E-General of the party, and the Fdong community service center, the Defendant changed his seal impression on October 7, 201, and the instant case.