beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 50,000,00 for each of the plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from July 1, 2012 to May 28, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 27, 2012, the network D (hereinafter “the network”) withdrawn KRW 100 million from its account by cashier’s checks (check number: E).
B. Around that time, the Defendant: (a) received the check from the Deceased, and issued the check to the Deceased at the bottom of the paper where the check was reproduced “I, by June 30, 2012, periodically borrowed the check; (b) write down the loan certificate indicating “I, by June 30, 2012.”
C. On July 20, 2014, the Deceased died, and his heir is a child.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased lent KRW 100 million to the defendant, and the plaintiffs inherited each one-half share of the loan claims, so the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay KRW 50 million to the plaintiffs each ( = 100,000,000 ± 2).
The defendant asserts that the above KRW 100 million was not the obligation of the defendant to repay the money invested by the deceased in the Taeban Comprehensive Construction, and that the deceased claimed the return of the investment amount and paid KRW 35 million.
B. Determination 1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 8, and Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, namely, ① the Defendant directly prepared and issued to the Deceased a certificate of borrowing KRW 100 million with the maturity of payment on June 30, 2012, and the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent by the content, unless there is any counter-proof that it is clear and acceptable to deny the content of the document so long as its establishment is recognized as authentic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759, Nov. 27, 1990; ② In a case where the Defendant was accused of deceiving the Deceased by deceiving the Deceased as if he would purchase state-owned land at a low level, the Defendant undergoes an interrogation by the prosecution on July 20, 2015.