beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 6, 2016 to November 23, 2016.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the cited parts (1) A2 and 3, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on December 17, 2012, and KRW 50 million on April 3, 2013.
(2) On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's assertion is unfair since it received business expenses upon the request of the plaintiff for the management business owner.
On the other hand, the interpretation of a declaration of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have granted to the act of expressing the intent, and in cases where the contents of a contract are written between the parties to the contract in writing, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing the intent should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written in writing, regardless of the parties’ internal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 2000); provided that the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intention shall be recognized as stated in the text.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012; 2013Da2245, Apr. 26, 2013). According to the records in Articles 2 and 3, document title is indicated as “a certificate of rent” and “a certificate of rent” can be recognized, and evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion is not submitted. As such, it is reasonable to view the above money as a borrowed money in accordance with the objective meaning of document.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
(3) According to the above facts, it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from April 6, 2016, the next day following the delivery date of the authentic copy of the payment order for KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff by November 23, 2016, which is the date of this decision, 5% per annum under the Civil Act.