1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and above.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 and 2 written evidence, the Plaintiff is recognized to have lent KRW 11 million to the Defendant on August 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”) at the maturity of payment on January 30, 2013, and at the rate of 5% per month interest.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 11 million and interest or delay damages thereon.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was forged since the Plaintiff’s No. 1 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stated only his name and resident registration number in blank, and the remainder was written voluntarily by the Plaintiff.

In other words, in cases where it is acknowledged that the person who prepared the private document voluntarily signs, affixes, affixes, or affixes his/her signature, seal, or affixes his/her seal on the private document, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been established unless there are other special circumstances, such as the reversal of such presumption by counter-written evidence, and in cases where the authenticity, such as the seal imprint portion, is recognized, the document shall be presumed to have been signed, sealed, or affixes his/her signature and seal under the circumstances where the entire document is completed, unless there are other special circumstances, and the circumstances such as that the person who prepared the document first puts his/her signature and seal upon the completion of the whole or part of the document shall be deemed to belong to this example. Therefore, if it is intended to reverse the authenticity of the document as the completion document, evidence such as reasonable reasons and indirect counter-proof to support the presumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11406, Apr. 11, 2003).