1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a letter of loan agreement (No. 1-1, hereinafter “the letter of loan agreement of this case”) from C (hereinafter “the letter of loan”). On the same day, the Plaintiff wired KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s account, the wife of C (hereinafter “the letter of loan”).

B. The loan agreement of this case contains a certificate of personal seal impression issued on the same day.

1. The term "amount" means that the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum of the sum 50,000,000 shall be duly borrowed from Ha and the following shall be met:

b.2. The interest on the loan will be paid 2% interest per month by the 30th day of each month in cash.

In the debtor column of the loan agreement of this case, the signature and seal of C and the name of the defendant are affixed to the debtor column of the loan agreement of this case, and the defendant's seal is affixed by the seal imprint book.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the borrowed money of this case, since the defendant signed the debtor column of the loan agreement of this case and affixed a seal imprint.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that C does not have the obligation to pay the borrowed money of this case since C's signature and seal in the debtor's column of the borrowed loan agreement of this case is without permission of the defendant

3. Determination

A. If the seal imprinted by his/her seal imprint affixed on a private document is affixed, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal imprint is actually presumed to have been created, i.e., the act of affixing the seal based on the will of the person in whose name the document was written, and once presumed to have been authentic, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been created in accordance with Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act, but such presumption is made by a person other than the person in whose name the document was written.