beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, and Defendant C, respectively, KRW 28,571,429 and each of the said money on November 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 1, 1990, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan stating the terms “one hundred million won per day, the above amount as of June 1, 1990,” with the network E, and on February 20, 201, the Plaintiff considered that the above amount was borrowed as of June 1, 1990, and that the above amount was not repaid until then. The Plaintiff drafted a new certificate of loan stating the following: “I will, upon the sale of the port F land owned by the Plaintiff, promise to pay the above amount immediately upon resolution of the transaction of G CC money.”
B. The network E died on July 26, 2015, and Defendant C and D, his spouse, jointly inherited.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. On February 20, 2011, the Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion is as to whether the loan certificate was authentic or not, and the Plaintiff’s loan certificate as of February 20, 201 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, the co-inheritors of the network E, is liable to pay the amount of the loan and the damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant loan certificate was not made by the true intention of the network E, and that the network E does not have any fact of borrowing money from the Plaintiff. As such, the authenticity of the instant loan certificate is presumed to have been duly established (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act), first of all, when the signature, seal or seal of the Plaintiff or his agent is affixed (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act). If the signature, seal or seal affixed to the document is affixed by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the signature shall be presumed to have been duly established (Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act), i.e., the document’s signature or seal affixed
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009).