Accordingly, the defendant asserts that only the loan certificate No. 1-2 of No. 1-1 and No. 2 of this case borrowed money according to the amount actually stated, and the remaining loan certificate contains the amount which overlaps with the above amount, or the interest on the loan was stated, or was written in the amount which was not paid to the plaintiff's birth. Thus, the claim for the loan of this case cannot be accepted.

In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document are clear and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da38602 delivered on October 13, 2000, etc.). The authenticity of each of the loan certificates Nos. 1 and 2 is recognized, and the documents submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to reverse the contents of each of the above loan certificates, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected.

However, in full view of the respective entries and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant can be recognized to have repaid the above amount of KRW 11,396,60 (the sum of KRW 8040,000 and KRW 3,356,600 recognized on the date of fourth pleading and the date of pleading) out of the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the above amount was appropriated for interest on the ground that there occurs interest equivalent to KRW 2.7% per annum even if he/she lent the money without interest agreement, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is asserted by the plaintiff.