1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,104,276 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from March 6, 2014 to June 9, 2015, and the next day.

1. Determination as to the claim for loans (450 million won) based on the loan certificate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent KRW 100 million to C, who is the actual operator of the Defendant Company, on January 12, 2012, and KRW 350 million on January 16, 2012, and C promised to pay the above amount on December 20, 2012, and prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A) for KRW 450 million in the name of the Defendant Company. Ultimately, the above loan certificate was prepared by C, who is authorized to prepare a loan certificate in the name of the Defendant Company, and the authenticity is recognized as established. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 450 million and interest or delay damages on the loan.2) The Defendant did not borrow the above amount from the Defendant.

The evidence No. 1 is merely a document that arbitrarily affixed the defendant's employee seal on the loan certificate that the defendant company D, an employee of the defendant company, written by E due to the strong pressure of E, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the authenticity is established.

B. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the document of determination is actually presumed to have been made based on the will of the person who prepared the document, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is presumed to have been made. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the person who prepared the document. Therefore, the document presenter bears the burden of proving that the act of affixing the seal is based on a legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared the document (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 08, 200), the seal imprint affixed to the defendant’s trade name of the document No. 1 is a dispute between the parties, but even if it is based on the plaintiff and the defendant’s assertion, the above seal imprint is not a representative director of the defendant’