beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 10 million won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from September 15, 2007 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 14, 2007, the Defendant drafted and delivered a loan certificate stating that “The Defendant shall borrow KRW 10 million to C on September 14, 2007 and make repayment by November 14, 2007.” However, the interest shall be paid by 2% per month (the certificate No. 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
B. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff received the principal and interest claim based on the instant loan certificate from C, and C notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim at that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion;
A. The Plaintiff C, while lending KRW 10 million to the Defendant, prepared and delivered the instant loan certificate, and thereafter, the Plaintiff received the said claim from C, thereby seeking payment against the Defendant.
B. Defendant (1) paid KRW 10 million from C on July 27, 2007, KRW 10 million on July 31, 2007, KRW 30 million on August 6, 2007, KRW 10 million on August 9, 2007, KRW 10 million on August 9, 2007, KRW 10 million on August 10, 2007, KRW 30 million on August 17, 2007, and KRW 10 million on August 21, 2007, respectively, but this was not a loan but an investment amount.
However, C is null and void because C prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case by requesting C to use it for the purpose of temporary display to its creditors.
(2) The extinctive prescription has expired.
3. Determination
A. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the content, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76825, Jan. 27, 201). In order to deny the probative value of a disposal document recognized as a authenticity, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that there is counter-proof or that the content of the document is contrary to objective truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57117, Feb. 8, 1994). The Defendant’s future KRW 110 million.