beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Under the name of the original Defendant of basic facts, a certificate of borrowing that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on May 30, 2016 as of December 31, 2016 and interest 2% (payment on December 30, 2016) shall be made on the date of maturity” was drawn up.
(A) Evidence No. 1, 200 (hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 100 million to the Defendant, such as the instant loan certificate, and thus, sought payment of the loan.
3. Determination
A. 1) In order to recognize the establishment of a loan claim by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the loan is not recognized in full view of the following: (a) in order to establish a loan claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant must prove not only the fact that a loan loan contract was concluded, but also the fact that the loan was delivered; and (b) the burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff's loan argument is without merit.
(1) The Plaintiff’s signature and seal affixed to the Defendant on the loan certificate of this case is not a loan contract for consumption of money, but a contract for money to be paid in substance between the Defendant and the original Defendant. Even if so, there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image following the Defendant’s name, which is based on the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 (the loan certificate of this case), is based on the seal of the Defendant. However, considering the following facts, C’s signature and seal affixed to the Defendant on the loan certificate of this case is recognized as being affixed to the Defendant’s name on the loan certificate of this case, in full view of the evidence No. 3 through 5, No. 7, No. 1 through No. 6, No. 8,9, and the witness’s testimony, and the whole purport of the argument at each of the testimony of the witnesses, it is difficult to deem that the loan certificate of this case cannot be used as evidence.