beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loans to the Plaintiff in Jeonju District Court 2008Gau24061, the Dasan District Court 24061.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to seek payment of KRW 15,00,000 for loans with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2008Gaso24061, the court below decided on June 26, 2008 that "the defendant ("the plaintiff in this case") shall pay to the plaintiff ("the defendant in this case") the amount of KRW 15,00,000 and the amount of KRW 24% per annum from January 30, 1998 to the date of full payment." The above decision on performance recommendation ("the decision on performance recommendation in this case") was finalized as of September 9, 2008.
B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 15,00,000 for loans with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2018Da4806, Jun. 18, 2018, the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiffs” in this case) rendered a recommendation of performance with the content that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendants”) the amount of KRW 15,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 24% per annum from January 30, 1998 to the date of full payment,” and the said recommendation of performance (hereinafter “instant recommendation decision”) was finalized as of July 6, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff does not actually borrow 15 million won as stated in the loan certificate (Evidence B No. 6). Thus, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant's loan claim should not exist and compulsory execution based on this should not be denied.
In a lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof on the grounds of objection should also be in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure.
Therefore, in case where the plaintiff asserts that the claim was not constituted by the defendant in a lawsuit claiming objection, the defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852 Decided June 24, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing is deemed to have been applied.