beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 170,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2015 to April 2, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 150,000,000 to Defendant B under the name of the intra-company director C. On June 25, 2014, the Defendants were obligated to jointly and severally pay KRW 170,000,000 and delay damages pursuant to the said loan certificate to the Plaintiff on June 25, 2014, “the Defendant borrowed KRW 170,000,000 from the Plaintiff and repaid KRW 170,00,000 by December 31, 2014.”
2. Determination
A. On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received a loan certificate from the Defendants on June 25, 2014, and thus, if the authenticity of the above loan certificate is examined as to whether the document is authentic or not, and if the stamp image affixed on the document is affixed by his seal, barring any special circumstance, it is actually presumed that the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the titleholder. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the stamp image is presumed, the entire document is presumed to have been authentic, but the actual presumption is presumed to have been made if it is proved that the act of affixing the seal was made by a person other than the titleholder, and thus, the presenter of the document bears the burden of proving that the document is based on the legitimate title delegated by the titleholder.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of the above loan certificates, and exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to the establishment of the above loan certificates, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to the establishment of the above loan certificates, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of the above loan certificates, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to the establishment of the above loan certificates, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
Therefore, loans between the plaintiff and the defendant company.