beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff and non-party C with the purport that "the defendant lent KRW 10 million to the plaintiff on March 27, 2007 under the joint and several surety of the Chuncheon District Court," and the above court on May 19, 2009 that "the plaintiff and C jointly and severally pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 10 million and the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 30% per annum from March 27, 2008 to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"), and the above payment order against the plaintiff can be acknowledged as the fact that the payment order against the plaintiff was finalized on June 19, 2009.
2. The plaintiff asserts that there is no fact that he borrowed KRW 10 million from the defendant around March 27, 2007 from the defendant, and therefore, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected on the premise that the defendant's loan claims against the plaintiff exist.
The plaintiff also asserted that there was no joint and several liability for the defendant C, but it appears that it was derived from the misunderstanding of the contents of the payment order in this case. Thus, it is not judged separately.
Where a disposal document is deemed to have been authentic, the existence of a juristic act which forms its contents shall be recognized, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and contents of an expression of intent expressed in the document are clear and acceptable.
(See Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16505 delivered on March 23, 1990, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the loan certificate (No. 1) of this case, which is a document for disposal, clearly states the purport that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant on March 27, 2007, with the due date set on March 20, 2009. Thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative and C, a joint and several surety on the payment order of this case, recognized the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and therefore, the authenticity is established.