1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, a credit service provider, entered into a loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant and the co-defendant C at the rate of 36% per annum on January 4, 2013, and paid the said money to the Defendant and the co-defendant C at the first instance trial.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of interest or delay damages, excluding the loan 15,000,000 won and the interest that the Plaintiff was paid (2,225,000 won in 2013, 1,200,000 won in 2014) by dividing the loan 15,00,000 and the interest that the Plaintiff was paid, in equal proportion with the co-defendant C

The defendant asserts that Gap evidence No. 1 (loan Contract) was forged in whole or in part.

However, if the stamp image of the person who signed the document is affixed the seal affixed to him/her, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the authenticity of the stamp image is created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who signed the document, and once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document

On the other hand, there is no dispute between the defendant and the co-defendant C’s seal affixed with Gap’s certificate of No. 1 (loan Contract) and the defendant’s co-defendant C’s seal affixed with his seal, and thus, Gap’s certificate of No. 1 (Loan Contract) is presumed to have been duly formed. As long as the defendant reverses the presumption of authenticity and fails to submit objective evidence to prove that the above contract was forged, this part of the defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept as it is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is not the party to the instant loan agreement is not the plaintiff, but the person who entered into the loan agreement with the plaintiff is the plaintiff, who is the plaintiff, and he is also the plaintiff.