1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 95,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 12, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, based on the monetary loan agreement (Evidence A No. 1), on December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 95,500,000 to C Co., Ltd. on August 11, 2017 due date, up to August 11, 2017, 6% per annum and 20% per annum until August 11, 2017, the due date for repayment was due. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed this, and the said company lost its benefit due date. Accordingly, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 95,50,000 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the above company did not receive a loan from the plaintiff, and that since the plaintiff's employee deceivings the defendant for internal treatment, his seal imprint affixed his letter to the above monetary loan agreement, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with.

B. In a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to a judgment document is the seal affixed to the name of the holder, barring special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the act of affixing the seal was carried out on the basis of the will of the name holder, and once presumed the authenticity of the seal, it shall be presumed that the entire document is authentic in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, it is necessary to prove that a person who asserts that a document is forged is affixed a seal against the will of the holder of the title deed actively.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Da684 delivered on August 24, 1982, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029 delivered on February 5, 2002, etc.). Moreover, in cases where a disposal document is deemed to have a authenticity, the existence and content of a declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the content of the document.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45317 Decided November 26, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s seal affixed to the instant case on the name and side of the Defendant, a joint and several surety, at the bottom of the said monetary loan agreement, is affixed.