The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The reasons for this court to accept the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for

The amendments shall be made from 7th to 12th of the decision of the first instance court as follows.

Inasmuch as the authenticity of documents is deemed to be the same in comparison with the defendant's seal impressions of each written estimate submitted by the defendant (Nos. 6 through 10) and the defendant's seal impressions Nos. 2 through 19, 21 (including paper numbers), and 22 (the document's seal affixed on the defendant's name) are deemed to be the same in comparison with the defendant's seal impressions of each written estimate submitted by the defendant, and the authenticity of documents may be proven even by the comparison with the penmatic or seal impressions, and the comparison with the penmatic or seal impressions may be determined by the court of fact-finding as matters belonging to the free evaluation of the fact-finding court without necessarily need to determine the sameness of writing, stamp image, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da38240 delivered on December 12, 1997, etc.). The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established.

Although the defendant defenses that this document was forged, it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the description of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[2] According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s entry, video, and oral argument, the following facts are acknowledged. The testimony of witness E of the party in question, the testimony of witness E of the party in question, Eul 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are contrary to this, and the statements of evidence (Evidence A22) are not reliable, and the contract (Evidence A) clearly shows that “new power plant, 00 No. 12, 000, 12, 19, 19, and 19 are the power plant contract, etc. entered into in the Defendant’s name through the Plaintiff’s business, and it is difficult to view that the statements are credibility compared to the existing statements by related persons, such as B and E

[3] The judgment of the court of first instance in the case of "Nos. 11, 14 through 18" is not sufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other reflective evidence.