beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of subparagraph 3-1 of the evidence No. 3-1 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant, on April 23, 2012, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that “it recognizes that the Defendant borrowed KRW 784,00,000 in a way that deposits through several passbooks and is delivered in cash over several occasions” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above recognition loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The defendant's defense is a false declaration of intent that the act of drawing up the loan certificate of this case was committed in collusion with the plaintiff, and thus invalid.
The following facts may be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence 26, Eul evidence 2-12, Eul evidence 16 through 18, 20 through 26, 28 through 37, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments. Contrary to this, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-1, Gap evidence 8, 9, 10, Gap evidence 23-1, 24-1, Gap evidence 25, Eul evidence 27-1, Eul evidence 27-1, and witness evidence D's testimony are not reliable, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.
1) The Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy on January 2008, and was declared bankrupt on May 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court, and was declared bankrupt around that time, and was in the absence of sufficient means to lend money of KRW 100 million to other persons during several years prior to the filing of the instant loan certificate. (2) The Defendant prepared money by means of lending an apartment owned by the Defendant as collateral or cancelling a term deposit under the name of the Defendant’s mother from August 2010, by means of either borrowing an apartment house or cancelling a term deposit under the name of the Defendant’s mother, etc., and did not receive any refund of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff and E in an internal relationship with the Plaintiff.
3. Accordingly, the defendant is also difficult to pay interest on the capital and from family members.