대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s written evidence and the entire argument as to the cause of the claim, the defendant borrowed KRW 34,766,70 from the plaintiff around March 6, 2012 as the due date for repayment of KRW 34,76,700 to the plaintiff on May 5, 2013 and 2% of the interest rate per month (payment on May 25)
‘The fact that it has drawn up a loan certificate' can be recognized.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from March 6, 2012 to the date of full payment, which is 34,766,700 won borrowed, and 24% per annum.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that the loan is not a loan, merely because the defendant prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) in the sense that the plaintiff's communal living expenses incurred by the plaintiff while living together with the plaintiff under the premise of marriage are confirmed by the defendant's indication of patriotism, the plaintiff asserts that the loan does not exist, or that the plaintiff's claim is contrary to the good faith principle.
However, in a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, barring special circumstances where it is clear and acceptable that the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document would be denied, the existence of a juristic act should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 2000). The loan certificate is also drafted in the context of settling the past monetary transactions. Thus, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as denying the payment promise of the amount indicated in the above loan certificate or having proved special circumstances where the Plaintiff’s claim is contrary to the good faith principle.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The defendant asserts that since the defendant paid KRW 25,109,920 out of living together with the plaintiff, the above amount of the plaintiff's claim was repaid.
In the case of money paid by the defendant prior to the preparation of the loan certificate, it is before or after the preparation of the loan certificate, which is recognized by considering the overall purport of arguments.