beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall be KRW 84,060,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 20, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff lent KRW 84,060,00 to defendant B on September 27, 2004 with the due date set on September 26, 2005. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 84,060,000 and KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 20, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case seeking payment.
B. 1) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 is that Defendant B prepared the evidence No. 1 (the evidence No. 1) but actually did not receive 84,060,000 won, and thus, Defendant B did not have borrowed the above money, and thus disputing the probative value of evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document. 2) In a case where the content of a certain contract between the parties to the sales contract is prepared in writing as a disposal document between the parties to the sales contract, the objective meaning that is given by the parties to the transaction according to the contents of the document should be reasonably interpreted regardless of the parties’ internal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 195; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 2000); provided that the objective meaning of the text in this case is clear, barring any special circumstances, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da72572, May 24, 2002; 2012Da44471, Nov. 29, 2012). In the instant case, there exists evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document, as evidence supporting the lending fact alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, asserting that there are other circumstances while disputing the substantive evidence of evidence No. 1, either reverses the substantial evidence of evidence No. 1.