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 plaintiff, on October 28, 1996, lent KRW 7,200,00 to D with interest rate of 4%, and stated the purport of the defendant's joint and several guarantee of the above loan obligation on the money borrowed (Evidence B No. 1; hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") written in relation thereto, and the fact that the defendant's seal is affixed may be recognized by the entry (except for the part of the defendant) in the evidence No. 1, that there is no dispute between the parties or that the defendant's seal is affixed.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, as a joint and several surety, is liable to pay the above KRW 7,200,000 as well as damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above joint and several liability is not true, and the defendant's intent of the loan certificate of this case was arbitrarily sealed.

If the stamp image of the person in whose name the signature is affixed on the private document is affixed with his seal, the authenticity of the stamp image shall be presumed to be established, i.e., by the intention of the person in whose name the stamp image is written, unless there are circumstances to the contrary. Once the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document shall be presumed to have been made in accordance

Therefore, under the loan certificate of this case, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant's portion among the loan certificate of this case is presumed to have been authentic, and the witness D of the trial party stated to the effect that the defendant's seal was affixed to the defendant who was accompanying the defendant at the time when he was living separately with the defendant, but the following circumstances, namely, the above testimony is the testimony to the effect that the whole process of preparation is not well memory, the witness E of the trial party stated to the effect that the defendant was affixed the loan certificate at the time, and according to the Gap's evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, it is insufficient to recognize that the above seal was affixed by D, according to the fact that both the defendant and D were registered as a resident in the "F of the Ocheon-gu, Ocheon-gu, Seoul."

In addition, the authenticity of the disposal document has been formed.