beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate with the following content (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”) and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
A (Plaintiff) Creditor with Cash Storage Certificate: (a) The debtor B (Defendant) promised to borrow KRW 80,000,000 (including principal and interest, and household checks) to repay to A until November 30, 2014; (b) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (c) entry of Gap evidence No. 1; and (c) purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts established prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 30 million after deducting the amount of KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s person who received reimbursement from the Defendant among KRW 80 million borrowed money, barring special circumstances.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts that: (a) the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate of this case with the purport that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 80 million without verifying the factual basis even though the amount received from the Plaintiff was merely 45 million.” As long as the authenticity of the document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to the extent that the content is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu3075, Jun. 12, 1990; 93Da5456, Oct. 11, 1994; 2000Da5456, Oct. 11, 1994). However, even in the case of a disposal document, if there is an explicit or implied agreement different from the written content, a fact different from the written content may be recognized, and even in interpreting a legal act by the originator, it can be freely determined within the scope not inconsistent with the empirical rule and logical rules (see, 2013Da463, Apr. 63, etc.