beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 250,00,000 and KRW 200,000 among them, from May 12, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant came to know of each other in D, a meeting of the president in 2009 within the Daegu District of C Association. 2) The Defendant drafted a loan certificate with the following content around September 1, 2016.
The loan certificate
1. Principal: 20 million won;
2. Date of repayment: November 3, 2018: 3.4 million won per month.
4. Time to pay interest: the 11th day of each month.
5. Loss of benefit of time: The obligor shall lose the benefit of time if he fails to pay interest once even if such payment is made.
If a creditor requests the principal and interest even before the due date, the debtor shall, without objection, make a performance.
The Defendant’s obligee: (a) the Defendant prepared a loan certificate with the following content on November 14, 2016 (hereinafter the foregoing “instant loan certificate”) (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate”) and the loan certificate as of November 14, 2016, respectively.
(b) A loan certificate;
1. Principal: 50 million won;
2. Date of repayment: November 14, 2020: One million won per month; and
4. Time to pay interest: the 11th day of each month.
5. Loss of benefit of time: The obligor shall lose the benefit of time if he fails to pay interest once even if such payment is made.
If a creditor requests the principal and interest even before the due date, the debtor shall, without objection, make a performance.
Obligor: Defendant Creditor: the fact that there is no dispute over the Plaintiff (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. 1) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da76825, Jan. 27, 201). In order to deny the probative value of a disposal document recognized as a authenticity, there is a reasonable ground to believe that there is a counter-proof or that the content of the document is contrary to the objective truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da57117, Feb. 8, 1994).