대여금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.
1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim, and the purport of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and Eul evidence 1-1, the plaintiff lent 6 million won to the defendant around September 2018, he/she received a partial repayment, and on July 15, 2019, he/she decided to remove 3 million won from the defendant on the 25th day of each month, and on the 300,000 won from the defendant on July 15, 2019, he/she did not raise an objection if 10 days or more, (hereinafter referred to as "the loan certificate of this case"), and the defendant may recognize that he/she paid 3 million won to the plaintiff on August 27, 2019.
According to the above facts, the Defendant’s remaining loan amounting to KRW 2.7 million and the due date (the above loan certificate contains a provision on loss of interest due to the due date)
Since then, there is a duty to pay 12% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 26, 2019 to the date of full payment after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff.
2. The defendant's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant borrowed KRW 6 million from the Plaintiff as gambling money while gambling in a press room operated by the Plaintiff, and without being forced by the Plaintiff to repay, the Defendant drafted the instant loan certificate.
The loan of this case or the loan of this case constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and thus null and void, even if valid, it is by fraud or coercion, and thus revoked.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.
B. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the Defendant also recognized the Defendant’s assertion of gambling funds in the court of first instance).