1. The appeal against the counterclaim Defendant is dismissed.

2. The occurrence occurs between the counterclaim and the counterclaim Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) drafted a credit transaction agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the credit transaction agreement of this case”) that constitutes a credit limit of 9,00,000,000 on November 24, 2009, the date when the counterclaim Defendant is a joint and several surety, and the date when the counterclaim Defendant is a joint and several surety, and the credit transaction agreement of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the credit transaction agreement of this case”).

B. On March 5, 2012, A was declared bankrupt on March 5, 2012 by the Gwangju District Court 2012Hahap1, and the Counterclaim took over the instant legal proceedings as a bankruptcy trustee of the debtor A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 9-1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the counter-party to the lawsuit asserts that the counter-party to the lawsuit should pay KRW 900,000,000 among the counter-party to the lawsuit, as the non-party to the lawsuit claims that the non-party to the lawsuit should pay KRW 9,178,573,435, since the repayment of interest was delayed and the repayment of interest was made by the R, and the principal and interest of the non-party to the lawsuit should be paid in advance.

On the other hand, the counterclaim defendant asserts that the seal of the counterclaim defendant affixed on the credit transaction agreement of this case is based on the seal of the counterclaim defendant, but because it was forged, it has no joint and several liability.

3. If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature affixed to the signature-keeping’s seal affixed to the document of determination is actually presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document, barring any special circumstance. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been created, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been created. However, such presumption is broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was done by a person other than the person who prepared the document. In such a case, the person who submitted the document is liable to prove that

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009