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. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the plaintiff's assertion of the cause of claim, the defendant, on March 21, 2017, issued a loan certificate (the evidence No. 1; hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") with the purport of borrowing KRW 33 million from the plaintiff and repaying it until September 21, 2017, and the plaintiff transferred KRW 33 million to the defendant on the same day.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 33 million won with the interest rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from August 22, 2018 to April 12, 2019, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day of the first instance judgment from August 22, 2018, and 5% per annum as stipulated by the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019).

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the right to make a fire-prevention supplementary sales slip to the Plaintiff, and that all of the loan claims were extinguished by offsetting the transfer price claim against the Plaintiff’s loan claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff lent 30 million won to C, and only under the name of C for the purpose of tax saving, etc., the defendant prepared a certificate of loan of 33 million won (including additional tax) with the defendant, and the actual borrower is C.

In general, in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a declaration of intent indicated in the document and the existence of a legal act in its content should be recognized unless there are special circumstances that can be clearly and acceptable to deny the existence of the declaration of intent indicated in the document.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990).