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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Subsequent to the second fourteenth sentence of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the further determination:

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Defendant promised to repay 45 million won to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff in the first instance court (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008Gadan16175) of the foregoing prior lawsuit, but thereafter, the Defendant transferred his claim to the Plaintiff and decided to waive the above loan claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable, and the Defendant submitted a written answer to the court on April 25, 2008.

The fact that the Defendant agreed on behalf of the Plaintiff to repay the loan amounting to KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on behalf of the father D is recognized as the fact that there is no dispute between the original and the Defendant, and the Defendant did not recognize the Defendant’s subrogation agreement with the Defendant with the “statement of performance, certificate of performance, and certificate of performance” (hereinafter “the document of this case”) claiming forgery.

Therefore, the issue of the lawsuit was whether the Plaintiff renounced the claim of KRW 45 million against the Defendant while taking over the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant C, and the first instance court and the second instance court (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008Na7394) progress by service by public notice against the Defendant were different.

The first instance court rejected the plaintiff's claim by recognizing that the plaintiff renounced his claim against the defendant, and the second instance court cannot be deemed to have renounced his claim against the defendant, and accepted the plaintiff's claim.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the “written statement of performance, certificate of commitment, and certificate of performance” (hereinafter “instant document”) which was the evidence of the final and conclusive judgment of the prior suit on May 17, 2019 was forged.