대여금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following matters as to this case, and thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it is not permissible to deny the probative value of the disposal document unless there exists any special reason to deny the probative value of the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da34911, Dec. 22, 1998). In light of the above facts recognized, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 100 million and damages for delay based on the agreement on the loan certificate of this case where the authenticity is established.
B. The Defendants asserted that the first instance judgment that the Defendant Company’s managing director lent KRW 100 million from E on November 17, 2017 to the Defendant Company on November 23, 2017, and that E lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company is erroneous determination of facts.
At the time G lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant Company only with the evidence submitted by the Defendants.
It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant company has paid interest of KRW 100 million to G for the purpose of paying the representative director later, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.
C. The Defendants asserted that the date of actual preparation of the instant loan certificate is February 27, 2018, and thus, KRW 100 million, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant Company on February 2, 2018, is the Defendant’s repayment of the loan claim against the Plaintiff on December 26, 2017.
The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the date of actual preparation of the loan certificate of this case was either the date of February 27, 2018, or the Plaintiff’s remittance was the said debt repayment on February 2, 2018, as alleged by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3...