beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 21 million to the Defendant.
Therefore, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder of KRW 9,462,90, except for the remainder of KRW 11,537,100, and the delay damages therefrom.
2. Determination:
A. In a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are special circumstances where it is evident and acceptable that the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document would be denied.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602 delivered on October 13, 2000, etc.). B.
The evidence No. 1 (Evidence) corresponds to the disposition document prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the content of the declaration of intention is relatively clear as follows: “The Defendant borrowed KRW 21 million from the Plaintiff on July 6, 2010, repayment of the borrowed money will be made until July 5, 201, and if the content is violated, all civil and criminal responsibilities will be borne by the principal at the time of the violation.”
C. However, considering the following circumstances that can be known to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 and 16 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of pleadings, the plaintiff is deemed to have made a joint investment of Nos. 1607 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, as it is not to lend KRW 21 million to the defendant, but to have made a joint investment of No. 101, 1607 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). Thus, the statement No. 1 of No.
1) On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D: (a) were awarded the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant for KRW 263,770,000; (b) the Plaintiff, and D, respectively, bear KRW 21,00,000,000; and (c) the remainder was paid the bid price by obtaining a loan of KRW 191,00,000 from the Saman Saemaul Community Fund as security from the Defendant, the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 191,00,000,000 from the said apartment; (b) on the same day, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate that is equally identical to the Plaintiff, and D. However, D did not lend KRW 21,00,00 to the Defendant, as well as jointly with the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D.