beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as annual 6% from August 12, 2016 to April 26, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on January 19, 201 with the main purpose of urban planning design business, etc., and the Defendant served as the representative director of the Plaintiff until he/she resigns on June 14, 2016.
B. On April 12, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and determined that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff on April 12, 2016, and that the principal shall be repaid until June 11, 2016, and that the interest shall be paid KRW 500,000 by the 11st day of each month, and that the Defendant shall submit a certificate of borrowing to evidence this,” and attached the Defendant’s certificate of personal seal impression to the said certificate.
C. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant transferred KRW 2,000,00 to the Plaintiff on December 30, 2016 upon the Plaintiff’s request to pay interest.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 100,000,000 and delay damages therefor.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant: (a) served as the Plaintiff’s representative director; (b) ordered civil engineering and park design and environment-friendly certification services related to the Incheon C Housing Redevelopment Project; and (c) agreed to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant for entertainment expense of KRW 100,000,000 used during the process, and prepared a false loan certificate from the Plaintiff for the convenience of accounting; and (c) did not actually borrow KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff. In addition, the dispositive document must be acknowledged as the existence of a legal act that is its content, unless there is any special circumstance that denies the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da38602, Oct. 13, 200).