1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant lent KRW 49,500,000 to the Defendant at an interest rate of 1% per month.

However, the Plaintiff merely received KRW 2,500,000 from the Defendant around December 2017, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 47,000,000 to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

(b) If the seal imprinted by the signature affixed on the document of determination is affixed to the signature affixed to the signature, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the intent of the signatureer, barring any special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to

However, the above presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person under whose name the document was prepared, so the person under whose name the document was affixed is responsible to prove that the act of affixing the seal was made by a legitimate title delegated by the person under

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). I, as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, borrow 49,500,000 won for the purpose of capital repayment and purchase of commercial vehicles, as well as for the purpose of purchasing them, and accept no objection to the collection of cargo cars and number plates (C) purchased at the time of not being able to pay interest (one copy per month) as a security for them.

The letter of payment in the name of the defendant and D, stated as "A", is submitted as Gap evidence.

However, the defendant recognized the identity of the stamp image as to Gap's No. 1, but denied the fact that the stamp image is affixed, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, since the person who affixed the seal of the defendant in the above letter of payment can recognize the fact that the defendant is not the defendant but the defendant's husband D, the presumption of the authenticity of the defendant's portion among the above letter of payment was broken.

In such cases, it is intended to recognize the authenticity of the defendant's portion of the above payment note.