beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 70,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 1, 201 to April 4, 2014; and (b) from April 5, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) awarded a contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on September 14, 2009 by setting the cost of removing the “F” of the Busan Suwon-gu E Park at KRW 2.475 million.
B. C was in need of funds for the selection of a hotel construction project at the time, and the said funds were deposited KRW 200 million as contract performance bonds with D in order to raise the funds.
However, since D did not have funds of KRW 200 million, it decided to lend funds from G, H, etc.
C. The Plaintiff received a request to lend some of the above KRW 200 million from G in order to create the said KRW 200 million, and the Plaintiff could not directly lend the said KRW 70,000 to G in view of the financial capacity of G, and it stated that C needs to transfer the said KRW 70,000 directly to C in need of the said money.
Accordingly, on September 3, 2010, the Defendant, the representative director of C, prepared a loan certificate (No. 1-1, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) from September 3, 201 to the effect that the borrower (creditor) as the Plaintiff, the borrower (debtor) as the Defendant, the borrower as the Defendant, and the borrowed amount as KRW 1,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 asserted that Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 should be deemed to have been reversed due to the preparation of Eul evidence No. 7. However, according to the defendant's assertion, Eul evidence Nos. 7 shall be deemed to have been reversed, since the defendant's name was entered in the document that was publically signed by the creditor, which was the document that was signed by the defendant, and it is difficult to view such document as the document written between the plaintiff and the defendant, and since Eul evidence No. 7 was prepared, it cannot be deemed that Gap evidence No. 1 has been destroyed or has no effect.