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 reasons for the acceptance and alteration of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the dismissal of the third to fourth to fourth to the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“If the authenticity of the seal imprinted on a private document is withdrawn by his/her seal, barring special circumstances, it shall be presumed that the authenticity of the seal imprinted, i.e., the act of affixing the seal, would be based on the will of the person in whose name the document was prepared. Once the authenticity of the seal is presumed, it shall be presumed that the entire document was made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, such presumption shall be broken if it is revealed that the act of affixing the seal was made by the person other than the person in whose name the document was written, or that it was made without going against or against the will of the person in whose name the document was written. Furthermore, the presumption that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, is de facto presumed. Thus, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprinted is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing the seal is based on his/her will

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da38049 Decided April 29, 2010). The foregoing legal doctrine also applies to unmanned cases.

The defendant, on March 30, 2006, had already ordered the plaintiffs to legacy the land of this case, and there was no reason to prepare again a letter of performance of the gift of this case, and the mother of the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to sign and seal on another letter of performance of the gift of this case around August 2013, which was after the plaintiffs' mother was prepared with a letter of performance of the gift of this case. The defendant's name stated in the letter of performance of the gift of this case is also the defendant's own pen.