1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on November 2, 2010, and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a right to claim the deposit of a provisional disposition that is in progress by the Defendant as collateral. In this context, the Defendant drafted and issued a certificate of evidence No. 2 and a contract for the transfer and takeover of bonds No. 3-3 in the meaning of the provision of loan and security to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the above loan claim from C on May 28, 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million, even if the Defendant was not the Defendant who lent money as alleged by the Defendant, and even if the Defendant was not the Defendant, the Defendant provided the right to claim the deposit collection as collateral, and first recovered by the Defendant’s creditor upon receiving the seizure and collection order, and thus, the Defendant is liable for nonperformance of the obligation to provide security agreement.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) C is not the defendant but the person who borrowed KRW 50 million from C, and the defendant offered the defendant's right to claim the deposit recovery as security upon E's request at the time. 2) The defendant's offering of the right to claim the deposit recovery as security will be paid to C only when the defendant withdraws the deposit. The defendant's creditor received an order to seize and collect the deposit, and thus the defendant did not have any responsibility for it.

2. As to whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from C on November 2, 2010 from November 2, 2010, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, since there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image of the Defendant’s name is based on the seal of the Defendant, as to whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from C, and the entire document is presumed to have been authentic. The Defendant asserted that the above certificate was forged, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it.