beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. A loan certificate (No. 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s obligor as the obligee as the Plaintiff and the Defendant is drafted as follows.
The loan certificate (Evidence A) of KRW 1,00,000,000 per day (1,00,000) was received by you from you, and thus, the obligation is to be performed as follows. 1. The due date for the principal shall be determined by the clerk until October 25, 2014. 2. Transplant shall be paid at 25% per annum. The certificate of joint signature of the borrower shall be submitted for the date of omission from March to May. 5.
Clerks, July 25, 2014, entry of Gap evidence No. 1 on the defendant's creditor (based on recognition)
2. Determination
A. 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 reflective evidence that would deny the content of the statement in the document where the authenticity of the document is recognized.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753, Jun. 11, 2002)
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
C. On July 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) borrowed one copy of the household check which is KRW 1,000,000 from the Plaintiff; and (b) did not specify the date of the drawing, the Defendant made up for the Plaintiff the instant loan certificate; (c) however, the Plaintiff was willing to make the said coefficient mark at a discount; and (d) did not receive the said coefficient mark from the Defendant but did not return the household check to the Defendant; and (c) it was true that the Plaintiff made the instant loan certificate, but in fact, did not borrow the money stated in the said loan certificate from the Plaintiff.
The statement No. 1 alone is insufficient to admit the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and as stated in the loan certificate of this case.