beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant A borrowed 1,000,000 won from the plaintiff who is engaged in credit business on November 26, 1999 and agreed to pay the interest amount of KRW 1,100,000 each day from the loan date to 11,000 (66% per annum for delay in payment of the principal and interest) and the interest amount of KRW 1,100,00 each day from the loan date (66% per annum for delay in payment of the principal and interest amount). According to the above facts, the defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the principal and interest of this case and damages for delay.
2. According to the evidence No. 1, since the Defendants’ defenses that they met all the obligations of this case to the Plaintiff on November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation of debt completion to the Defendant A on November 19, 2013. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A paid all the obligations of this case on November 19, 2013. Thus, the Defendants’ defenses are with merit.
As to this, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendants paid only 25 percent loans by December 29, 199, did not pay the remainder of the debt, and the above written confirmation of debt completion is merely a mistake issued to the plaintiff's employees.
However, in a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized unless there exist any special circumstances that clearly and acceptable to deny the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). The Plaintiff does not dispute the establishment of the authenticity of the said written confirmation on the completion of the obligation, and the Plaintiff is neither Party A nor Party 6,8 through 8.