1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, the defendant, on September 8, 201, prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") stating that "I will confirm that I will borrow the above amount from the plaintiff on September 8, 201, the daily payment of KRW 11,000,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the attorney's expense of the case C, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff on September 8, 2011."

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 11,000,000 won borrowed and delayed payment damages, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that there is no fact that he borrowed KRW 11,00,000 from the plaintiff and there is no fact that he received the above money.

In light of the foregoing, the existence and content of an expression of intent in accordance with the content of the document must be recognized, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that would deny the content of the statement in the document where the authenticity of the document is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619 Decided July 9, 2009). The defendant recognized the authenticity of the loan certificate of this case on the date of the first instance trial at the court of first instance. As long as the loan certificate of this case, which is the disposal document, is deemed to have been duly formed, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 11,00,000 from the defendant as stated, and there is no other counter-proof.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the loan certificate of this case in this case was invalid by the Defendant who forced the Plaintiff to prepare the loan certificate to the effect that “A, the husband of the Defendant, may be detained, and may not come to the reduction house. C borrowed the attorney’s fees from the Plaintiff, but C would be in danger if the loan certificate is not prepared.” Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the loan certificate in this case was void under Article 104 of the Civil Act.

The loan certificate of this case is drawn up.