beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 10 (including various numbers), as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 46,00,000 to the defendant on April 20, 2012 at the rate of 20% per annum and interest rate of August 30, 2012. The defendant did not repay KRW 12,00,000 among the above loans as of March 10, 2015; the plaintiff did not repay KRW 15,00,000 among the above loans; the defendant and the co-defendant C and D on March 10, 2015; the plaintiff set KRW 15,00,000 per annum and interest rate of KRW 20,000 per annum; the plaintiff lent KRW 6,020,000, C00,000 per annum and interest rate of KRW 20,000,204.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from August 31, 2012, and from March 31, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to the remaining 6,020,000 won, which is the following day of the due date for repayment, for the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 12,000,000 (=12,000,000,000) and KRW 12,00,000,000.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. In relation to the claim for a loan of KRW 12,00,000, the defendant asserts that Gap evidence 6 (the loan certificate of KRW 46,000,000) was invalid in collusion with the plaintiff in order to clarify the use of the subsidy while constructing a facility using the government subsidy, and that Gap evidence 1 (the loan certificate of KRW 12,00,000) is a forged document, and thus, there is no obligation to pay the plaintiff the loan of KRW 12,00,000,00 to the plaintiff.
However, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text 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 2004Da67264, 67271, May 13, 2005). The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is the loan certificate of No. 6.