1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the manager of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a cashier’s checks to the Defendant, and the Defendant, on February 18, 2010, set up and kept “20,000 won to the Plaintiff as the date of repayment.” The Plaintiff drawn up a cash custody certificate of the content (hereinafter “instant custody certificate”).

At the bottom of the custody certificate, ‘E' is written as ‘E'.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 (including virtual number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The storage certificate of this case, in which the Plaintiff’s repayment date is indicated, is the real loan certificate, notwithstanding its title.

In addition, the custody certificate is written by the defendant as the custodian, and E is merely a participant, so the defendant who is not E is obligated to refund the above KRW 20,000 to the plaintiff as the principal debtor and the damages for delay.

(2) The Defendant’s custody certificate of this case is merely the fact that the Defendant was in custody of money, but does not state that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff. Even if the above custody certificate is considered as a loan certificate for domestic affairs, the Plaintiff merely received a custody certificate in the name of the Defendant as it was impossible to trust E in the course of investing money in the business of E, and there was a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that only E is an obligor.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case on a different premise.

B. (1) The existence and content of an expression of intent must be recognized in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the content of the statement where the formation of the disposition document is duly accepted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60172, Aug. 17, 2012). However, the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (the instant custody certificate) is established.