1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Disposition of the first instance judgment is first set forth in paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the second instance’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion as to Article 420 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 42

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Defendant did not prepare a power of representation with B; (b) the Defendant did not have signed and sealed the document of the instant mortgage contract; (c) thus, the document of the instant mortgage contract was forged; (b) the obligor, which is an important part of the content of the instant contract, was not indicated, and thus, is null and void; and even if the Plaintiff’s expressive representation is recognized,

③ In addition, the Plaintiff abused the Defendant’s right by using the Defendant’s seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression, and thus, the instant mortgage contract is null and void. (4) Although the Plaintiff asserted that the instant mortgage contract was a debtor’s contract in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of obligation, the Plaintiff’s assertion as a debtor is null and void against the principle of trust and good faith or against the principle of

B. 1) Determination 1) On the first argument, the fact that the Defendant Company B, who received a seal imprint or a certificate of seal imprint from the Defendant, entered into the instant mortgage contract with the Plaintiff is identical as recognized earlier. Thus, even if the Defendant did not separately prepare a power of attorney to B, it cannot be said that the instant mortgage contract was forged solely on the ground that the Defendant’s agent or expressed agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, who signed and sealed the instant document on behalf of the Defendant, was not the Defendant’s own seal. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.