beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 7,00,000 and 5% per annum from July 18, 2018 to April 17, 2019; and
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to repay the above loan to the plaintiff, since he lent a total of KRW 37 million to the defendant.
The defendant asserts that the above KRW 37 million was a donation made to the defendant by the plaintiff who had been in an internal relationship.
2. Determination
A. The court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the contents of the statement, so long as the disposition document that the Plaintiff paid is recognized to be authentic in its formation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da47367 Decided August 25, 201, etc.). With respect to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 37 million to the Defendant. According to the purport of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Defendant prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a cash tea certificate stating that “the Defendant shall have borrowed KRW 7 million from the Plaintiff as of September 30, 2017,” and on May 15, 2017, “the Defendant shall borrow KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as of May 201, 201,” and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was a loan to the Defendant, according to the above facts acknowledged.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the above cash tea certificate and the money tea certificate are prepared by the plaintiff's strong pressure. However, it is difficult to recognize only the statement of Eul No. 4 and the testimony of Eul witness C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
B. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the scope of loans, the Defendant, as sought by the Plaintiff, shall serve the Plaintiff a delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from July 18, 2018 to April 17, 2019, which is the date of this decision.