beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with the contents, and shall not reject the contents without the explanation of the grounds that it is difficult to believe it, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents in its formation, so long as the judgment of disposition as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim is recognized to be genuine.
(Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759, 12766 Decided November 27, 1990). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 2, the Defendant promised to pay KRW 180 million to the Plaintiff on August 30, 2008, by October 30, 2008.
“The fact that the Defendant prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate to the effect that it is, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 180 million as stated in the cash custody certificate, which is a disposal document, as well as the delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that Gap's cash storage certificate of Gap's No. 2 is different from the entries, and that the substance constitutes a stock investment delegation contract and cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and Eul evidence No. 1-5, the plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 210,300,000 to the defendant from February 13, 2006 to April 4, 2008, and the defendant deposited KRW 73,70,000 for repayment to the plaintiff from March 3, 2006 to August 4, 2008.
However, in light of the above evidence and the overall purport of the pleading, the following circumstances are revealed.
① As alleged by the Defendant, there is no objective evidence to deem that the Plaintiff engaged in monetary transactions by concluding a stock investment delegation contract with the Plaintiff at risk of loss of investment risk, and rather, on the condition that the Defendant initially returned and guaranteed the profits from stock investment or the principal and interest on investment.