대여금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 130 million with 12% per annum from February 15, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
1. Determination as to the cause of the claim. According to the evidence evidence No. 1 through No. 3, the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s request by the director of the Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff transferred the total of KRW 130 million from August 2015 to June 2017, to D Co., Ltd.; and the Defendant, around January 7, 2019, entered into an agreement to pay KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff by January 20, 2019.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 130 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from February 15, 2019 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, as the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case after the payment day.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant asserted that, as an executive officer of D, E did not perform any legal act, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate without the intent of repayment, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation.
In light of the fact that the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized inasmuch as the content of the document is clear and acceptable as it is recognized that the document is authentic, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized. Even if it is a disposal document, if it is proved that it is forged and the authenticity is not recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document cannot be recognized.
(2) The defendant's assertion against the above facts of recognition is not accepted, since the defendant's return to the case and the health care unit, according to the loan certificate (Evidence A (Evidence A 3) that the defendant acknowledged the authenticity of its establishment, and the above facts of recognition are merely recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the agreement on the back of the defendant's obligation.
3. Conclusion.