대여금
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. As to the existence of loan obligation
A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 through 3, and the purport of the witness D’s testimony and pleading as a whole, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 948,750,00 to the Defendants by the due date for payment by June 14, 2007.
Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the said money and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim” or “instant obligation”) b.
In this regard, the Defendants acknowledged the fact that they have signed the loan certificate (No. 1) in support of the above loan. However, they merely signed and delivered the loan certificate without stating the creditor and the credit amount to the F, who was in charge of administrative affairs, such as the accounting and fund management of the hospital in which the Defendant B had worked as the vice-president, and they asserted that there was no fact that the Plaintiff received money equivalent to the amount stated in the above loan certificate.
However, in the event that the Defendant’s signature, which is the title holder of the document written in the disposal document, does not dispute the Defendant’s signature and seal, even if the document is not affixed with the seal of the signature, the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established, and thus, the probative value cannot be dismissed without permission without permission, as it is presumed to be acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16383, Feb. 13, 1990). Since the delivery of the document only by signing it in blank constitutes an example, it is necessary to have reasonable grounds and evidence to support the presumption of the authenticity of the document.
(See Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1397 delivered on September 27, 198). In this case, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they did not have expressed their intent to assume obligations against the Plaintiff and did not have received money. However, insofar as there is no clear and acceptable proof of rejection of the probative value of the above loan, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the stated contents is recognized.