1. On the part against Defendant C of the judgment of the first instance, the part against which the lower payment order is against the Plaintiff.

On February 23, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted against Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Defendant C, and in addition, Defendant C agreed on April 22, 201 to return KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff on April 22, 2011 as to lending KRW 20,000 to Defendant C’s lease deposit for the restaurant “Lcafeteria.” As such, Defendant C is liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 5,00,000 and damages for delay.

Judgment

As to the assertion that the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to Defendant C, the following stamp image of the Defendant C’s name is based on his seal does not dispute with the parties. However, if the testimony of Defendant C’s witness B at the trial room shows the overall purport of the oral argument, it may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff, a mother of Defendant C, who had lived with the Plaintiff for about 10 years, prepared the above loan certificate as his own seal without the consent of Defendant C, and there is no other data to deem that B had the right to affix the seal of Defendant C, so it cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Defendant C, such as the details of financial transactions, etc.

The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

As to the assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the claim that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the lease deposit of the Lcafeteria operated in the name of the Defendant C, and the fact that the Defendant C directly agreed to the Plaintiff at the expiration of the lease term of the above restaurant, and there is no counter-proof.

Although Defendant C does not dispute the fact that the seal of the principal is affixed to the above documentary evidence, the authenticity is arbitrarily stamped without his consent, and the authenticity is denied. However, if Defendant C neglected the overall purport of the pleading as a result of the written appraisal by the appraiser P of the party trial, the content of the above document is B.