beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 70 million won to the plaintiff and 25% per annum from April 6, 2007 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff traded by borrowing money to the Defendant from around 2006 to 2007 and receiving repayment of the principal and interest each day (the “number of days”).
The above amount of KRW 70,00,000 shall be regularly kept, and the above amount shall be 25%/year from April 5, 2007 to October 5, 2007, on the date of keeping the deposited money from April 5, 2007 to the date of filing a counter-influence at the request of the person under custody. The above interest shall be 25% of the year when the person under custody fails to comply with any punishment under the Civil and Criminal Act.
The custodian: The address, resident registration number, and telephone number of the defendant (the seal affixed to the Dok) : The address, resident registration number, and telephone number of the C (the seal affixed to the Dok) : The plaintiff Ha on April 5, 2007
B. On April 5, 2007, the Plaintiff received a cash custody certificate from the Defendant as follows.
(2) The court below held that the defendant's act of affixing his/her seal imprint on the part of the defendant is forged and thus, the court below held that the defendant's act of affixing his/her seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint was forged and thus, the defendant's act of affixing his/her seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document. The court below held that the defendant's act of affixing his/her seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint on the part of the defendant's seal imprint is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document.
2. If the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court, in principle, has expressed its intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement.