1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is engaged in the past housing site development business and sales business for electric power plant site development business, etc., and sells many parcels of land in Seopo-si B around 2015 divided by subdivision, and then sells them to many persons. The Defendant is a party who purchased land, such as Seopo-si C, which is part of the company.

B. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant drafted a certificate of borrowing (Evidence A 1; hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”) stating that “the Defendant borrowed five million won from the Plaintiff as of December 30, 2015 by setting the due date for repayment of five million won.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 7, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to complete payment to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant did not borrow the actual five million won from the plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff initially decided to undertake the construction cost of a set exceeds the estimated construction cost, the Plaintiff requested the purchaser of the land including the Defendant to bear the construction cost of KRW 2 million. The Defendant consented thereto. Upon the Plaintiff’s request to the Defendant that “The construction cost should be paid to the Defendant through the Defendant’s account on the ground of corporate tax issues, etc., as if the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant signed and sealed the instant loan certificate.”

3. Determination

A. 1) In the instant case, insofar as the establishment of a legal disposition document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent 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 contents stated therein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, 19783, Feb. 15, 2017).