beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 15 million and KRW 5 million among them, Defendant B’s amount to KRW 15 million from January 25, 201, and KRW 10 million.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 17, 201, Defendant B prepared a cash receipt stating “five million won for tea, due date for payment, January 24, 201,” and on April 17, 2011, Defendant C prepared a cash receipt stating “one million won for tea,” and on October 17, 2011, the due date for payment. (b) On May 4, 2011, Defendant C drafted a cash receipt stating “one million won for tea and the due date for payment, August 4, 2011.”
hereinafter referred to as "each of the above documents drawn up by the Defendants to the Plaintiff" is referred to as "each of the above loan certificates of this case."
(i) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
2. Determination
A. As indicated in each of the instant loan certificates, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to Defendant B, and KRW 10 million to Defendant C, and separately lent KRW 10 million to Defendant B on March 28, 201, respectively, so the Defendants are obligated to pay the respective loan amounts to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) If the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, barring any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the content of the statement, the court shall, in principle, recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667, Sept. 26, 2014). The Defendants are liable for the payment of each corresponding amount to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. 2) Although the Plaintiff was not in preparation of a loan certificate, the court decided to lend KRW 10 million to Defendant B on March 28, 2011, and paid KRW 7,030,000,000, which remains after deducting the payment and interest, etc. paid to the Plaintiff.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, Defendant B subscribed to various number systems operated by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s account under Defendant B’s name on March 28, 201.