청구이의의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband C died. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a report of qualified acceptance in inheritance with the Daegu Family Court Kimcheon-Ma182, the Daegu Family Court of Law, which reported qualified acceptance on September 6, 2012.
B. On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan (No. 2, hereinafter “the certificate of loan”) with the content that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million to the Defendant as of June 2014, without setting interest thereon, by setting the due date as of June 2014.
C. On June 14, 2016, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan pursuant to the loan certificate of this case as the Youngcheon District District Branch Branch Branch 2016Ra280, and issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 30 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment,” and the above payment order was finalized around that time.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap’s evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. First, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “The obligation under the instant loan certificate was actually incurred by borrowing KRW 30 million from the Defendant around 2002, and the above obligation against the Defendant was extinguished after the lapse of the ten-year extinctive prescription period, and the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff inherited the property of C, made a qualified acceptance, shall not be subject to compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.”
However, barring any special circumstance where the existence and content of an expression of intent expressed in the document is evident and acceptable, in a case where the authenticity of the document is recognized, the existence of the content of the legal act must be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200).