beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from February 28, 2014.
Reasons
1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned 50,000,000 won to the defendant on March 23, 2004, a total of 10,000,000 won of the issuance of Han Bank's cashier's checks (hereinafter "the cashier's checks of this case") to the defendant on March 24, 2004 without fixing the due date.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,00,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 28, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, to the day of the delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Around 2003, the Plaintiff, who was the president and the secretary of the Newdo Council of C (hereinafter “C”) who was the inspector located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H (hereinafter “C”), requested the Defendant to perform the external duties, such as permission for the construction of C, which was required to restore landslide damage due to damage caused by typhoons, and issued the instant cashier’s checks for its expenses.
The loan certificate No. 1 was prepared by the plaintiff, around August 2010, to request the defendant to prepare and request a false loan certificate to be used rapidly in another place.
B. In full view of the overall purport of evidence No. 7 and evidence No. 11-4 of the evidence No. 11-4, D’s husband E issued the instant cashier’s check to the Plaintiff on March 24, 2004, and the Defendant testified to the effect that on May 3, 2011, the instant cashier’s check was not for C, but for the first instance trial of the first instance court of the loan claim lawsuit between the Plaintiff and D (this Court Decision 2010Da293574, 2011 or 36380, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da38278).