beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion determined and lent KRW 7 million to the Defendant on July 28, 2015, at the interest rate of 20% per annum. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 7 million and interest and delay damages.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff submitted as evidence of the above argument Gap evidence No. 1 (A) and Gap evidence No. 2 (Defendant's certificate of personal seal impression). In a case where it is recognized that the stamp image affixed to the document was reproduced by the seal affixed to the person who prepared the document, barring special circumstances, the authenticity of the stamp image and the authenticity of the entire document will be presumed to have been established, unless there are special circumstances. However, it is presumed that the document is a document where the seal imprints after the contents of the document were recorded first, and the content of the document is bound by the seal affixed to the person who prepared the document in blank, and where the document is supplemented by a person who is not the person who prepared the document in blank, the document presenter bears the responsibility to prove the fact that the contents of the document are based on the legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared the document, and such legal principle does not change with the document as
(Supreme Court Decision 9Da37009 delivered on June 9, 2000, etc.). B.
However, the above evidence No. 1, while the defendant borrowed 20 million won from C, the fact that the plaintiff obtained from C only the signature and seal affixed to C with the signature and seal affixed to C while the loan amount column, D, loan period column, etc. was affixed to C, and supplemented each of the above public columns and entered "A return" at the bottom, is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, No. 6.
Therefore, in order to recognize the authenticity of the above No. 1, the plaintiff must prove the fact that the plaintiff supplemented the above public disturbance, etc. by the legitimate authority delegated by the defendant, and the evidence No. 2 shall be recognized only.