1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 3, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the business of leasing temporary materials in the name of "C", and the defendant is the owner of the Dtel, and E is the contractor for the construction of Dtel.

E, on December 20, 2016, on the part of the Plaintiff, set up and issued a certificate of confirmation that the Plaintiff consented to receive instead of the Plaintiff the claim for construction cost of KRW 70 million against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “certificate 1”).

On December 21, 2016, the Defendant also drafted and issued a certificate of confirmation that the Plaintiff would pay the said KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2017 (hereinafter “certificate of confirmation No. 2”).

[Ground of recognition] In light of the above facts without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 3, 2017 to the date of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, in the absence of special circumstances.

The defendant's assertion on the defendant's assertion determined KRW 70 million as security deposit in preparation for the loss, theft, damage, etc. of temporary materials leased to E.

70 million won on the certificate of confirmation Nos. 1 and 2 of this case refers to the above security deposit. As long as the temporary materials are entirely returned to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the amount of KRW 70 million according to the certificate of confirmation Nos. 1 and 2 of this case.

Judgment

As long as a disposal document is deemed to be authentic in its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60172, Aug. 17, 2012). Meanwhile, conditions are the same as those of a juristic act by either party’s declaration of intent.