1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

On January 7, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent to the Defendant 20 million won interest monthly interest rate of 1%, and on May 31, 2008, the due date for repayment of payment period of 2008, the Plaintiff submitted a certificate of loan under the name of the Defendant stating the same contents (hereinafter “the certificate of loan in this case”). Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the certificate of loan in this case was forged by C, and that it is disputing the establishment of the authenticity.

If there is a dispute as to the authenticity of a private document, the document presenter must prove the authenticity of the document. Thus, the testimony by the witness C of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the loan of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, C can only recognize the fact that it arbitrarily affixed the defendant's seal to the loan of this case by excluding the defendant's seal.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan on the premise that the loan certificate of this case was duly established is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts that even if the loan certificate of this case was forged, the Defendant granted C basic power of representation, such as issuing his seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression, and establishing a right to collateral security on the real estate under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff believed C to have the right to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and there is a justifiable reason to believe as such, the Plaintiff shall be held responsible for the expression agent under Article 126

First, since there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant issued the certificate of his seal impression and the certificate of seal impression so that it can be used by the Defendant to obtain authorization or permission necessary for the extension of real estate in the attached list owned by the Defendant, the Defendant should be deemed to have granted C the basic right of representation related to the application for authorization or

Furthermore, we examine whether there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to believe that the Plaintiff has a right to represent the Defendant C.

Gap 2 and 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul .