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. On February 15, 2001, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant, including KRW 5,000,000,000 on March 27, 2001.

Accordingly, from May 15, 2001 to March 28, 2007, the Defendant remitted total of KRW 13,800,000 to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the said loan.

B. On June 3, 2007, the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate stating that “one million won shall be repaid up to December 30, 2007,” to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “this case’s cash custody certificate”). 【No dispute exists concerning the basis for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 10,000,000 and the delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiff as interest without interest, and paid KRW 13,80,000 in excess of the loan amount to the Plaintiff, and the cash custody certificate of this case is null and void since the Plaintiff’s drafting of the cash custody certificate was made by coercion to the Defendant.”

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant prepared and issued the cash custody certificate of this case to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2007, stating that “The Defendant paid KRW 13,800,000,000 from the rent of KRW 10,000,00 to the above loan principal and interest, shall be appropriated,” and that “the remaining amount shall be determined after appropriating the above loan principal and interest.”

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant prepared the cash custody certificate in the state of coercion only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff and then borrowed KRW 13,80,000 in total to the Plaintiff on 57 occasions.