1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 2, 2012 to February 6, 2018.

On March 24, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the claim was filed against the Defendant and lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on February 20, 2012.

The Plaintiff: (a) around 201, when the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000,00 from C to July 25, 201, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation; (b) from September 16, 201 to July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff subrogated KRW 15,500,000 to C.

On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,770,000, out of the money loaned from the Kunsan Credit Union at the Defendant’s request, to the Defendant that the principal and interest would be repaid if the Plaintiff received a loan under the name of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loans and reimbursement amounting to KRW 35,270,000 (=10,000,000 won) and damages for delay.

Judgment

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 10,000,000 won as a loan and the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay 10,000,000 won and interest or delay damages on the loan to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. The defendant is obligated to pay 10,00,000 won and the interest or delay damages on the loan to the plaintiff as of February 20, 2011, with the purport that the loan is borrowed as of February 20, 201.

The defendant asserted that at the time of the preparation of the above loan certificate, the defendant was residing in the D apartment in Gunsan City, but the defendant was responsible for bearing a large number of debts and thus the claim for the return of deposit could be seized, and that if the above deposit return claim is seized, the plaintiff was prepared by making the plaintiff as the lender to participate in the distribution in the name of the plaintiff, and that there was no actual monetary transaction based on the above loan certificate.

However, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall 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 counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein.

Supreme Court Decision 200