1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,416,205 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 7, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Basic Facts

On April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff lent 25 million won to the Defendant’s husband C, without setting interest, to the Defendant’s husband C until June 3, 2008.

The payment order against C was finalized on May 16, 2013, stating that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 25 million won with the interest rate of 20% per annum from May 2, 2013 to the date of full payment” that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20% per annum from May 2, 2013 to the date of full payment.”

On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 10 million out of the above borrowed money from C.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1 and 3's respective descriptions and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The plaintiff asserts that, as the defendant has acquired C's debt against C, the defendant has a duty to repay the loan based on the above payment order.

There are two (the overlapping debt acquisition contract) as evidence that conforms to the facts of the overlapping debt acquisition agreement.

A 2 (A) since there is no dispute between the parties that the seal affixed after the defendant's name is affixed with the seal of the defendant, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established.

In regard to this, the defendant's above seal affixed at will by the defendant's husband C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the seal is affixed, and the above defense cannot be accepted.

Of course, according to the legal principles stated in Supreme Court Decision 2014Da29667 Decided September 26, 2014, etc., the presumption of the authenticity of a disposal document shall be careful when considering the authenticity of the disposal document by the seal of the person in whose name the document was prepared, and in particular, when it is found that the holder of the disposal document was delegated by the person in whose name the document was affixed with his/her duties or relatives, etc., he/she shall be more careful, but in this case, the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the document