1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff is the head of the branch office of Hanhwa Bio-resources C, and the Defendant was an insurance solicitor working for the said branch. 2) On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 11,743,000 on behalf of the insurance policy holders managed by the Defendant.

3) On August 14, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 11,743,00 from the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014, and paid KRW 1,00,000 out of the above money on August 30, 2014, and repaid KRW 6,743,00,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan certificate”).

3) The authenticity of the document is recognized because the document was prepared and awarded / [based on recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (which acknowledges the fact that the document was prepared by the defendant).

The defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's duress 13 days after the loan date, but it is insufficient to recognize that the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's duress merely because the loan certificate was prepared after the loan date, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

B. 1) In a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized, barring any special circumstance as to the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). In light of the loan certificate of this case, which is a disposal document, the authenticity of which is recognized, the Defendant borrowed KRW 11,743,00 from the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff insurance premium for the policyholders managed by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant served the written complaint of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, as sought by the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff on March 6, 2016.