대여금
1. The plaintiff and defendant B's appeal are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant B borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on May 14, 2018, and KRW 1 million on May 24, 2018, and agreed with the Plaintiff on August 3, 2018, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim No. 1-1 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages calculated by the annual delay rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 18, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019); and from the next day to the day of full payment, from May 21, 2019 to the day of full payment.
B. Defendant B’s assertion, etc. 1) The above Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 30 million to Defendant B is not a loan but a money paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the construction order.
However, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized unless there are clear and acceptable circumstances that deny the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document, in a case where a disposition, such as the loan certificate, is recognized as the authenticity of the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Da16505, Mar. 23, 190). Unlike the expression of intent indicated in the loan certificate of this case, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 in the above 30 million won, as alleged by the defendant, are insufficient to recognize special circumstances that can be deemed as the amount paid by the plaintiff in connection with the construction order, as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.