1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from August 6, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

1. The parties' assertion that the Plaintiff received the instant loan claims from C with respect to the network D, and that the Defendant succeeded to the network D's obligations, and that the Defendant is obliged to pay the said loan obligations to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant denied the fact of borrowing money to the network D's D's C, and denies the authenticity of the evidence No. 2, which is a disposal document, to the effect that it denies the authenticity of the evidence No. 2.

2. In a case where it is acknowledged that the seal affixed to the person who prepared the document is a signature reproduced by the seal, barring special circumstances, the signature is presumed to have been affixed by the person who prepared the document, i.e., the authenticity of the document pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act if it is presumed that the document was duly authentic, and thus, it is presumed that the document was written without the intention of the person who prepared the document against the will of the person who prepared the document, or without the intention of the person who prepared the document, should be actively proved by the person who asserts it, and the probative value of evidence

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da82158 Decided November 13, 2008. According to the purport of the statement and arguments in this case and the statement and the whole purport of the statement of No. 12, a seal imprint of the network D’s seal impression and the seal imprint of a seal imprint affixed on Gap’s cash certificate No. 2 is identical. The issue date of the above seal imprint is January 14, 2010, the date of issuance of the said seal imprint is the date immediately before January 16, 2010, and the above D is issued directly. In addition to these circumstances, if the testimony of the witness E and C is added, it can be presumed that the above seal imprint is affixed with the network D, and further, the authenticity of the entire loan certificate is presumed to have been established.

The defendant alleged that the above loan certificate was forged by C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and it merely causes the probability of the defendant's assertion.