계금
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. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that of the first instance judgment except for the following parts, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part to be dried shall consist of the three to five lines in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
“The Defendant, around September 2016, agreed to pay KRW 36 million to the Plaintiff up to December 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). The loan certificate is the same as the loan certificate stipulating that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 36 million up to December 30, 2016.
) At the time of drawing up and making payment to the Plaintiff, KRW 40 million (each remaining amount of KRW 10 million, KRW 20 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 20 million, and KRW 20 million) was merely the amount of KRW 600 to KRW 8 million, which shall be paid to the Plaintiff at the time of drawing up and making payment of the loan certificate, and the said loan certificate is a defense to the effect that the preparation of the above loan certificate is null
However, as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to find out special circumstances that the Plaintiff and the Defendant in collusion prepare a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff shall pay 60 million to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, remaining after 60 million to 8 million won.
In addition, considering the following circumstances, which can be known by the aforementioned facts and the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 and the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the instant loan certificate was prepared in the presence of Eul, a third party; ② the above loan certificate was also stipulated in the payment method when it is not performed; and ② the amount of debt 36 million won as stated in the loan certificate is the amount corresponding to the plaintiff’s assertion, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the preparation of the above loan certificate as a false indication only with the reasons alleged by the defendant and the evidence submitted by the defendant.