beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B’s KRW 71,538,083 as well as 5% per annum from March 13, 2018 to December 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In around 2012, Defendant B: (a) drafted a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “the first certificate”) stating that “Defendant B borrowed KRW 20 million as interest per month; and (b) would repay the Plaintiff by May 30, 2014; (c) stated the Defendant C’s personal information on the “joint guarantor” column, and affixed the Defendant C’s seal kept by Defendant B.
B. Meanwhile, the above loan certificate is written with the phrase "0 million won, including additional0 million won," and the seal of the defendant B and C is affixed to the pertinent part, and each of the above seals is different from each other affixed by the first defendant B.
C. On March 30, 2012, Defendant B prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A2) that “Defendant B borrowed KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff.”
In addition, on July 22, 2013, Defendant B borrowed KRW 10 million as interest per month, and gave up a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 3) to the effect that “Defendant B borrowed KRW 10 million as interest per month, and would repay by May 30, 2014,” and Defendant D, his wife, Defendant B, guaranteed Defendant B’s debt of KRW 10 million.
After that, on July 2, 2014, Defendant B prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 4) stating that “Defendant B borrowed 18 million won as interest on a third-month basis and intended to repay by July 30, 2016” to the Plaintiff again.
(B) Defendant B’s each of the instant loan certificates issued by Defendant B to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant loan certificates”).
Defendant B used credit cards under the name of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the sum of the credit card payments paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant B is KRW 8,538,083.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As long as the conclusion of the judgment on the claim against Defendant B by the relevant legal doctrine is recognized, the court is clear and acceptable to deny its contents.