beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff with the purport that "the defendant lent KRW 15 million to the plaintiff on July 6, 2007" as the Seocho District Court's territorial branch of Chuncheon District Court's 2009j1036, and the above court on November 17, 2009, "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 15 million and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 24 percent per annum per annum from April 6, 2009 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"). The above payment order against the plaintiff can be acknowledged as the fact that the payment order against the plaintiff was finalized on December 23, 2009.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, on July 6, 2007, no one received KRW 15 million from the Defendant from the Defendant, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant payment order should be denied on the premise that the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff exist.
Where a disposal document is deemed to have been authentic, the existence of a juristic act which forms its contents shall be recognized, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and contents of an expression of intent expressed in the document are clear and acceptable.
(1) In light of the above legal principles, the loan certificate (No. 1) of this case clearly states that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant on July 6, 2007 in two copies per month interest, in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990). Thus, since C, a legal representative of the Plaintiff, recognized that the stamp image indicated in the above loan certificate is the Plaintiff, the authenticity is presumed to be established. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above stamp image is not the Plaintiff’s seal, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s loan claim against the Plaintiff exists, and there is no evidence to acknowledge any special circumstance to deny the contents specified in the disposition document.
Therefore, it is true.