beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 8, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant prepared and awarded to the Plaintiff A a certificate of borrowing “the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff as of June 16, 2010.”
B. In addition, the Defendant prepared to the Plaintiff B a loan certificate stating that “The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 80,000,000 from the Plaintiff B, and repaid as of August 15, 201, and if the Defendant failed to perform it, he/she promised to create property rights with D as joint and several surety by September 15, 201.”
(A) Each loan certificate referred to in subparagraph (b) / [the grounds for recognition] 1 and 2 (the defendant defense to the effect that each loan certificate of this case was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and according to the result of appraiser E's written appraisal, since the defendant's name, which is recognized as the defendant's written statement, is written on the above loan certificate, the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established) and the purport of the entire argument as a whole.
2. Determination
A. As long as a disposal document is deemed to have been duly formed, the court must recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da105867, Apr. 26, 2012). (B)
However, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant respectively borrowed KRW 50,00,000 from Plaintiff A and KRW 80,000,000 from Plaintiff B, respectively, in light of the ordinary transactional norms, the fact that the borrower did not receive the borrowed money even though the borrowed money was drawn up constitutes an exceptional case in light of the fact that the borrower did not receive the borrowed money, and unless there is any counter-proof that the content of each of the borrowed money in this case is false, it is based on the probative value of the disposed document.