대여금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and its interest on March 16, 2009.
1. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim (the loan amounting to KRW 100 million on September 16, 2005) Gap evidence No. 1 (the loan amounting to KRW 80 million on September 16, 2005), while recognizing that the above loan certificate is identical with the defendant's seal, the defendant asserts that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts, but there is no evidence to prove the defendant's above facts, the defendant's assertion is rejected), Gap No. 2, and No. 4 (including the paper number) respectively, and according to the following: (i) the plaintiff decided to lend the loan amounting to KRW 100 million on September 16, 2008 to the defendant on the same day, and paid KRW 80 million on the same day, KRW 20 million on November 10, 2005, and KRW 300 million on the loan amount to the plaintiff, barring any special obligation to pay the loan amounting to KRW 300 million on September 25, 20009.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As seen earlier, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the loan certificate (No. 1) was forged, and that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff as interest KRW 50,000 per month, and that the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant was paid in the relationship between the head not the loan and the fraud.
However, in the above evidence and evidence No. 7, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed as follows, i.e., (i) insofar as the identity of the stamp image on the above loan certificate is recognized as identical as to the above loan certificate as seen earlier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da59630, Mar. 10, 2016). In light of the Plaintiff’s possession of a certificate of registration of real estate attached to the above loan certificate, it is reasonable to deem that the above loan certificate was recognized as having been stated in the above loan certificate, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s total sum to the Defendant according to the contents stated in the