beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Around March 30, 2004, the Defendant prepared and delivered a certificate of borrowing KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing”).
[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the loan in accordance with the instant loan certificate, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the instant loan certificate, but the Defendant did not receive the loan certificate from the Plaintiff. At the time, around 2004, at the 17th National Assembly election of Seoul National Assembly members, the Defendant sent the loan certificate to the candidate affiliated with Seoul local constituency, and the Plaintiff prepared and issued the above loan certificate to bear the production cost of the election promotional materials. However, since the Plaintiff failed to pay the production cost of the election promotional materials to the Seoul National Election Commission, the Defendant submitted the above loan certificate to the Seoul National Election Commission for the payment of the election expenses and settled the above printing cost, the instant loan certificate was null and void, and thus, the claim of this case is without merit.
As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the contents of the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents of the statement are denied, and shall not reject it without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu27116, Jun. 26, 1990; 2006Da27055, Sept. 14, 2006). According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant agreed to borrow and repay money from the plaintiff by preparing the loan certificate of this case, which is a disposal document, and the statement in subparagraphs 1 through 3 alone is sufficient to deny the loan agreement by the loan certificate of this case and to pay the printing cost for the election campaign.