beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that on February 18, 2009, the plaintiff was issued with a certificate of loan from the defendant to lend KRW 300 million to the defendant and to pay by March 31, 2009. The defendant asserts that he is obligated to pay the above loan amount of KRW 300 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
Although the defendant prepared a loan certificate to the plaintiff, it is true that it received management rights of the stock company C (hereinafter referred to as "C") operated by the plaintiff and then filed a lawsuit against D during the period of lawsuit against C, and thus, it shall keep KRW 300 million out of the transfer proceeds. However, upon winning the lawsuit as a result of the lawsuit above, C shall return the amount of KRW 300 million to the plaintiff and if C loses it, it shall be agreed to cover the damages suffered by the defendant and the above loan certificate was prepared and thereafter C lost in the lawsuit above, it shall not be obligated to return
2. Determination:
A. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, unless there is any reflective proof. However, even in the case of a disposal document, if it is acknowledged that there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the document, it may recognize facts different from the content of the document, and in interpreting the legal act of the originator, it may be freely determined as a documentary evidence to the extent that it does not
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418 delivered on July 12, 1991, etc.). B.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff and the defendant as the attorney-at-law E on Feb. 18, 2009 prepared a loan certificate stating that the defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the plaintiff as of Mar. 31, 2009 (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), three copies of the cashier's checks of KRW 100 million for the face value claimed by the plaintiff to be lent to the defendant are from the plaintiff on Feb. 19, 2009.