1. The defendant's delivery of vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 18,950,300 to the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the written statements and the purport of the whole pleadings as seen earlier by the Defendant’s assertion that the stamp image portion of the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 was stolen by C, the Defendant, on August 28, 2007, provided the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant as collateral and borrowed KRW 25,000,000 from the Plaintiff and agreed to pay the borrowed amount including the legal interest at the time of repayment. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum, which is the legal interest rate stipulated in the Civil Act, as sought by the Plaintiff, at the same time as the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant vehicle.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the grounds for appeal by evidence, the Defendant alleged as follows: Gap's evidence Nos. 3 (U.S.), Gap's evidence No. 4 (vehicle transfer note), and Gap's evidence No. 5 (vehicle operation permit) (hereinafter the above documents are referred to as "this case's loan certificate, etc.").

(2) If the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, barring any special circumstance, to have been presumed to have been established, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, in fact, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprint is caused by the intention of the person in whose name the document is prepared is presumed, so if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprint proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal is followed by the intention of the person in whose name the document is written, the presumption of the authenticity of the document is broken down.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003). In such cases, the same shall apply.