beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from December 23, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
There is a question as to whether the portion indicated as "......." as "......................." in the loan certificate No. 1 is recorded by the defendant's will.
Where the author of a private document admits that he/she has signed the private document in question, barring any special circumstances, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been made, and if the authenticity of the stamp image portion, etc. is recognized, the document may be presumed to have been signed by the author under the condition that the entire document is completed, barring any special circumstances, and the circumstances such as the author first puts his/her signature upon the completion of a part of the document at that time shall belong to this example. Thus, in order to reverse the presumption of the authenticity of the document as a completion document, there is a need for evidence, such as reasonable grounds and indirect counter-proof
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da62977, Nov. 10, 201). The Defendant asserts that, while the obligor’s column, amount, and name of the above loan certificate were directly stated by the Defendant, the Defendant did not state the part of the due date for repayment of the loan certificate, and that the Plaintiff did not state it voluntarily.
Since the defendant recognized that the above loan certificate was signed by the defendant, it is presumed that the defendant signed the above loan certificate before the due date is stated, and there is no reasonable ground to recognize that only the signature was first made without the due date, and there is no evidence to support this.
Therefore, as stated in the above loan certificate, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on December 26, 2004 the due date for the loan of this case.
If the purport of the entire argument is added to each statement in the evidence No. 1 or No. 4, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to borrow KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff until December 2003, and to repay the above KRW 100 million until December 26, 2004.
Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.