beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 31, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant reported the marriage on August 14, 2008, but reported the divorce on December 16, 2013 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013No2738), and reported the marriage again on October 5, 2015.
B. On November 2, 2016, the Defendant issued and delivered the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) to the Plaintiff stating that “the Plaintiff shall borrow KRW 50,000,000 from the restaurant open to the Plaintiff and make a prompt payment at the time.”
C. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant opened a restaurant in the name of “C cafeteria”.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) As long as the determination of the cause of the claim based on the loan certificate of this case is recognized to be genuine, the court shall, in principle, 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 counter-proof that is acceptable to deny the contents stated therein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da48265, Feb. 26, 2002; 2008Da88016, Jan. 14, 2010). The loan certificate of this case is a disposal document, and the defendant is deemed to have established the authenticity itself. It is difficult to view that there is any counter-proof that the contents of the loan certificate of this case can be denied even if comprehensively considering the written statements in subparagraphs 6, 7, and 2 through 9 (including each number), and the content of the loan withdrawal between the defendant, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case to the plaintiff within 00 days.
This can be seen as cases where there was no agreement on the time of return and interest rate. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant opened a restaurant on March 2, 2017, and the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant.