beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
2...
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 9 million on July 24, 2013, and KRW 9 million on July 25, 2013, respectively, and that the Plaintiff received two copies of the loan certificate of KRW 9 million (No. 1, 2, hereinafter “each of the instant loan certificates”) (the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, 300,000,000,000 from the Defendant as the Defendant and the due date set out on August 30, 2013) from the Defendant may be recognized either by the parties or by the evidence No. 1, No. 2, A, 11-1, and 2.
2. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 18 million to the defendant and received each of the loans in this case from the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 18 million and the delayed payment damages in accordance with each of the loans in this case.
On the other hand, the defendant ordered the defendant to prepare two copies of the loan certificate 9 million won in the name of the defendant in order to pretend that the above money was used as D's election fund withdrawn from the election of the chairman of the promotion committee of the CHousing Reconstruction Project Association, and accordingly, the defendant formally signed each of the loan certificates of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for the loan based on each of the loan certificates of this case. Each of the loan certificates of this case is written by the plaintiff and the defendant with knowledge that all of the contents of the loan certificates are not true, and thus, it is invalid under the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act as a false indication or a false indication that it is invalid under Article 108 (1) of the Civil Act.
3. Determination
A. As long as a determination on the cause of the claim is recognized as a petition, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated therein, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the content of the statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da5456 delivered on October 11, 1994, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is worth KRW 18 million from the plaintiff.