1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. This part of the judgment concerning the cause of claim is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment on the cause of claim 1.). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that if the defendant lends his name to establish a corporation from C, D, E, etc. as representative director, the defendant would pay KRW 2 million per month, and the defendant's certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of resident registration, etc. are issued. Although the defendant did not permit the joint and several surety under the lease contract of this case, C, etc. used the defendant's seal impression design, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that since C et al. filed a criminal complaint for the crime of forging private documents, the defendant cannot be held liable for joint and several liability for the lease fee obligations under the lease contract of this case.

However, if the seal imprinted by the holder of a title deed signed and sealed on a private document is affixed with his/her seal, it is presumed that the act of affixing the seal will be based on the will of the holder of the title deed. On the other hand, once the authenticity of the seal imprint is presumed to be established, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da5523, Apr. 10, 2008). In addition, as long as a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the intent as stated, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents therein

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da1601 delivered on February 10, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 93Da55456 delivered on October 11, 1994, etc.). At the second hearing of the first instance trial, the Defendant stated that the Defendant’s seal affixed on the lease contract (A) of this case is identical to the Defendant’s seal registered on the certificate of the personal seal impression, and the Defendant appears to have been withdrawn by the Defendant’s seal actually. Thus, in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant’s own will.