1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

Around June 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to make a loan (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Plaintiff at a rate of 1% (payment on the 20th day of each month) of interest rate of KRW 40,000,000 on December 31, 2016 (Provided, That the Defendants, the property inheritor, with the exception of KRW 2,000,000 and KRW 32,000,000,000, and the due date for repayment, shall be repaid each month and the remainder of the principal shall be repaid until December 31, 2016), and agreed to settle all of the claims and obligations arising from the transfer with the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff died on March 12, 207, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants, the property inheritor, have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 8,00,000,000, KRW 32,0000, KRW 4000,300,06,00.

On the other hand, the burden of proving whether a lending contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the deceased E as alleged by the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff asserting the lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da256732, Jun. 9, 2016). In a private document, where the other party contests the authenticity of the private document, the presenter must prove the authenticity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da31549, Nov. 8, 1994). However, evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, and 5-2, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, is disputing the authenticity of the establishment by the Defendants. The following stamp image of the network E name Nos. 1, 5-1, and 5-2, is not a stamp image based on the network E’s seal imprint, but can be confirmed only by the evidence alone.

In addition, since the evidence of No. 9 was not specified as to who was signed by the Party A, it is not sufficient to recognize that the network E affixed a seal or signature on the evidence of No. 1, 5-1, 5-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

Therefore, evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, and 5-2 cannot be used as evidence.

On the other hand, No. 2, No. 1, 3, and 5.