1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

If, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed affixed on a private document is presumed to have been made, barring any special circumstance, and once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the authenticity of the seal imprinted is actual presumption that the act of signing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of a title deed, the presumption of the authenticity of the seal imprinted by the court is broken if the person disputing the authenticity of the seal imprinted proves circumstances that the act of affixing and sealing is attributable to the intent of the holder of the

(2) In the event that a disposition document is deemed to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein, so long as the disposition document is deemed to be genuine.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002). A’s certificate No. 1 agreement, and the Defendant’s seal imprinting part of the document is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document.

The defendant asserts to the effect that this document was forged by C, which is the plaintiff's employee or the employee of Esabbbb, when he revoked the recognition of the defendant's seal portion through the preparatory document as of July 7, 2015, which was stated on the date of the first pleading in the court of first instance on the date of the fourth pleading in the court of first instance.

First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the recognition of the defendant's seal portion was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and such revocation is not effective.

Next, the Plaintiff’s employees or C put their seals against the Defendant’s will on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 through 8, Eul’s evidence Nos. 11, Eul evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, and Eul’s evidence No. 14.