beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as its annual rate from June 28, 2015 to February 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 30, 201, the Defendant: (a) written and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2011; (c) each of the loan certificates issued by the Plaintiff on September 30, 201 that the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant loan certificates”); (d) on September 30, 2010, three copies of the cashier’s checks issued at the office of the Seoul, the Seoul, the Seoul, the Seoul, Agricultural, Forestry, and Agricultural Branch on September 30, 201, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over KRW 10,00,000,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 100,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 10,000, respectively; or
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on September 30, 201, and KRW 10,000,000 on April 28, 201, and KRW 17,00,000 on May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff sought payment of the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 57,00,000,000 as well as interest specified in the purport of the claim.
B. A non-defendant C borrowed money from the Plaintiff.
If the Plaintiff, upon finding the Plaintiff himself and lending money to the Defendant, made a false statement to her husband, only prepared and issued each of the instant loans to the Plaintiff in doing so.
3. Determination
A. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the existence of each of the instant loans between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is recognized to be genuine of the formation of the disposal document, the court shall recognize the existence and content 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 content stated therein.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602 Decided July 9, 2009, etc.). However, each of the statements submitted by the Defendant in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 submitted by the Defendant is difficult to view it as a clear and acceptable reflective document that denies the content of each of the instant loans, which is a disposal document.