1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In order to establish a house for the defendant and the representative director B of the plaintiff to reside together with C, the defendant paid 50,000,000 won for lease deposit under a lease agreement concluded between the defendant and C with respect to Nos. 202 and 2205 of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with C, and the defendant paid the above 50,000,000 won between the defendant and the defendant as of October 30, 2013, and paid the above money in lieu of C.

B. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As to the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 2 (hereinafter "the copy of the loan of this case"), the plaintiff seems to have lent KRW 50,000 to the defendant, and the authenticity of Gap evidence No. 2 (hereinafter "the copy of the loan of this case").

1) If the seal imprinted by a holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is affixed with his/her seal, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the seal imprint shall be presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the holder of the title deed, barring special circumstances. Once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been created pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the presumption that the authenticity of the seal imprints is based on the will of the holder of the title deed is de facto presumed. Thus, if a person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprints proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal imprints is based on the will of the holder of the title deed, the presumption of the authenticity shall be broken out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96DaDa462, Jun. 13, 1997; 2002Da59122, Feb. 11, 2003>