대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,950,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 26, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
1. On November 6, 2014, the Defendant drafted a cash custody certificate (Evidence 1; hereinafter “the instant cash custody certificate”) with the purport that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 28 million from the Plaintiff, thereby promising the Plaintiff to complete payment not later than December 31, 2012, given that it borrowed KRW 28 million in cash. In addition, the Defendant provided a cash custody certificate (Evidence 1; hereinafter “the instant cash custody certificate”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 28,950,000, which the plaintiff sought from the plaintiff among the amount of cash custody certificate of this case, to the defendant in a criminal case in which the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in fraud.
(See No. 5) and, as requested by the Plaintiff after the due date, there is an obligation to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from April 26, 2016 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, under the conditions as requested by the Plaintiff.
B. While recognizing the fact of preparing the cash custody certificate of this case, the defendant asserts that the part of the "additional three million won should be repaid in addition to the plaintiff's arbitrary alteration." The defendant's assertion that the cash custody certificate of this case was altered shall be proved by the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da4674 delivered on November 10, 195), and there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and therefore, the defendant's assertion of alteration cannot be accepted.
(A) The defendant does not seem to have made the above modification in a criminal case in which the plaintiff filed a complaint under subparagraph 5. (C)
The defendant asserts that the money received from the plaintiff is invested by the plaintiff through the defendant in the Mebius, and that the cash custody certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, but it is not sufficient to recognize it by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5.