beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On November 20, 2007, the fact that the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on November 20, 2007 at the highest rate of 20% per annum of November 20, 2009, interest rate of KRW 7.9%, change rate of interest, and delay compensation rate of KRW 10,00 to the Defendant on November 20
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff should pay the principal and interest of the loan since the Defendant prepared and delivered the agreement on the change of each of the credit conditions of this case (A-1, 8-2) as of April 28, 2010 and November 25, 201, and lost the benefit of the due date prior to the extended repayment date. 2) The Defendant asserted that the agreement on the change of each of the credit conditions of this case was written around November 20, 207, and that the agreement on the change of each of the credit conditions of this case was written around November 20, 207, and the remainder was written in blank and delivered to the Plaintiff without the consent of the Defendant.
C. Determination 1) In the event that the Defendant’s signature, which is the title holder written in the document, does not dispute the Defendant’s signature and seal, it is presumed that the document was authentic, and thus, it cannot be rejected without any explanation that the document was authentic, and the document was signed and delivered only to blanks. Thus, it constitutes a case where: (a) it is necessary to have reasonable reasons and evidence to support the document’s authenticity in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da11590, Oct. 14, 194). 2) In light of the above legal principles, it is presumed that the document’s signature and seal stated in each credit condition change agreement of this case were written by the Defendant, and thus, it is presumed that the entire document was authentic without any consent of the Defendant.