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 April 25, 2012, C Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s representative director, concluded a construction contract with the Defendant to receive a contract for the new construction work of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Complex Building and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant for KRW 2,180,000,000 for the construction cost.

B. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 35 million to the Defendant, including KRW 20 million on March 25, 2013 and KRW 15 million on March 29, 2013, and on March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a loan certificate (Evidence 1) stating that the Plaintiff would repay the said KRW 35 million after the completion inspection of the building.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of KRW 35 million transferred to the defendant is the amount loaned by the defendant that the defendant requires the cost of completion inspection and resolution of civil petitions related to the construction of the building of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 35 million is not a loan, but a defect guarantee insurance premium and security money to be borne by the corporation which had originally been the representative director, which are to be borne by the defendant, and this is the amount to be settled together with the construction cost.

B. Determination 1) In a case where a disposal document is deemed to have been genuine, the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the document should be recognized unless there is clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46531, Nov. 13, 2008). In light of the fact that the loan certificate No. 1 prepared and issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., evidence No. 1, that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendant and stated that the deposit will be repaid when the deposit is deposited after the completion of the new construction of the building of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35 million to the Defendant twice as stated therein.