1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39 million and the interest rate of KRW 15 percent per annum from July 21, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 7, 1998, the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff and KRW 27 million from February 11, 1999, and repaid KRW 3 million among them.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loans to the Plaintiff KRW 39 million (=total loans KRW 42 million – KRW 3 million) and delay damages.

B. The defendant borrowed 15 million won from the plaintiff on August 22, 1998, and 10 million won on October 31 of the same year, and 25 million won on September 20, 1999. The defendant repaid 5 million won on September 6, 1999; Nov. 1, 199; 4; 20 million won on January 31, 200; and 30 million won on March 4, 200.

Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation to pay to the Plaintiff is merely KRW 15 million.

2. Determination

A. 1) If the authenticity of the signature affixed to a document is actually presumed to have been made by the name holder’s seal affixed to the document for total loan amount, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the name holder’s will. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, such presumption is broken if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the name holder. Thus, the person who submitted the document bears the burden of proving that the act of affixing the seal is based on a legitimate title delegated by the name holder (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69686, Apr. 8, 203). Meanwhile, if the authenticity of the document is recognized, the existence of the legal act in question should be recognized unless there is any special circumstance to deny the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da362682, Oct. 136, 20, 2000.).