beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, against the defendant B of the plaintiff (appointed party) who is equivalent to the amount ordering payment below.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 8, 2002, Defendant B issued to G a certificate of borrowing KRW 100 million.
B. Defendant B completed the registration of each transfer of ownership claim on September 6, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on September 20, 2010 to Defendant C, his father, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on September 23, 2010; and on September 9, 2013, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 on September 6, 2013; however, Defendant B had no particular property, except each of the said real estate.
C. G died on April 5, 2012, and the heir was F, who was the Plaintiff, the Appointor D, E, and H who died on May 30, 1997.
(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.” in combination with the Plaintiff and the Appointors hereinafter). [Grounds for recognition]: (a) the absence of dispute; (b) each entry of Gap evidence 2 through 9, and 16 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) the inquiry results on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The plaintiff et al. alleged that the defendant B borrowed KRW 100 million from G on March 8, 2002, and that the plaintiff et al. had the duty to return it to the plaintiff et al. who is the heir of G. In this regard, the defendant B asked for the financial transaction between G and G, and if G were to receive KRW 100 million from G, the defendant B would make an investment in the incorporated association I et al. operated together with G, and therefore, he did not have the duty to return it.
As long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da39172, Nov. 15, 2012). As long as the Defendant B drafted a loan certificate (Evidence 2-1) stating that it borrowed KRW 100 million from G on March 8, 2002, it shall grant G.