beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from two pages to three pages 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance). As such, this part of the basic facts is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion was agreed between the plaintiff and the plaintiff to convert the purchase price of the apartment of this case into the loan, and the plaintiff prepared and delivered the certificate of monetary loan of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 178,070,00 as stated in the above monetary loan certificate to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is the plaintiff's management director, who did not receive the payment or retirement allowance from the plaintiff, although he did not perform his duties as the union of this case. The plaintiff, on May 30, 206, sold the apartment of this case to the defendant more than the normal sale price, and the defendant paid the purchase price to the plaintiff in full.
The Plaintiff, even to G, H, I, J, and K, had a representative director, specially sold F apartment units at lower prices than normal selling prices. However, G requested the Plaintiff to prepare a false loan certificate in order to pretend the difference between normal selling prices and special buyers as a loan to the Plaintiff. Upon such request, the Defendant only prepared and delivered the instant monetary loan certificate to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
B. Determination 1) As recognized in paragraph (1) that the Defendant prepared and delivered the instant monetary tea certificate to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2007, the Defendant included the number of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, 1, 4, and 9 if there are evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, 1, 4, and 9, and the document Nos. 4 is presumed to have established the entire document’s authenticity as there is no dispute over the identity of the originator’s seal impression. The Plaintiff is the Defendant.