1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while allowing the network B to engage in the used vehicle sales business under the name of the Plaintiff, issued its certificate of personal seal impression, identification card copy, and resident registration.

B. On December 3, 2010, the network B commenced the sales of used cars under the name of the Plaintiff, “D”, and entered into a marina loan agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff on February 17, 2012 to the extent that the Defendant and the Plaintiff were the debtor (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

In the process, the network B arbitrarily rejected the Plaintiff’s seal impression without the Plaintiff’s consent by using the certificate of seal impression issued by the Plaintiff, and then stated the Plaintiff’s name in each debtor column of the loan contract and credit transaction application form, and affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression on the name side of the name.

C. The instant loan agreement was extended on February 7, 2013 and February 7, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation to determine the cause of the claim, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has asserted to deny the facts constituting the cause of the claim by specifying the first claim in advance, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of asserting and supporting the facts

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). As to the fact that the instant loan agreement was lawfully concluded according to the Plaintiff’s intent, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the agreement solely by the descriptions of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the above facts, the loan agreement of this case only forged the Plaintiff’s seal, loan contract, and credit transaction application without the Plaintiff’s consent, and entered into the instant loan agreement with the Defendant with the Plaintiff as the obligor.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is against the Defendant.