대여금
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the purport of subparagraph 1 of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 20 million out of the principal of the loan as of March 16, 2010 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant, on March 16, 2010, directly prepared and delivered the loan certificate (Evidence 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 0,000 in daily payment after six months, and the monthly interest shall be 1.5 copies, and the interest shall be paid in advance.”
In principle, 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 where it is clear and acceptable to deny the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). As recognized earlier, the loan certificate in this case is directly prepared and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the authenticity is established. Thus, the defendant, barring special circumstances, is liable to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 20 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 30 million, a person who was paid by the defendant for the principal of the loan on March 16, 2010, among the loan principal amounting to KRW 50 million as of July 17, 2012.
(B) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the principal of the loan as of March 16, 2010 according to the loan certificate of this case was KRW 45 million, since the amount actually paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant according to the loan certificate of this case was KRW 45 million except for interest, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion by the Defendant merely stated in subparagraph 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The fact that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10 million to the Defendant on August 27, 2012, as of August 27, 2012, that the Plaintiff leased KRW 10 million to the Defendant on August 27, 2012 is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant was dated August 27, 2012, barring special circumstances.