beta
Text
1. Upon arrival of July 24, 2023, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and its payment from July 25, 2023.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1 (the defendant's seal impression part is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document because of the lack of dispute. The defendant's defense that the above document was forged by the plaintiff, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it), and the whole purport of the pleadings as to the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 are deemed to be an obvious clerical error.
7. 24. It is recognized that the Plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate of KRW 40,000 with the debtor as the defendant and the creditor as the plaintiff with regard to KRW 40,000.
In a case where a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intent based on its content should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759, Nov. 27, 1990). Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000, barring any special circumstance.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant's establishment of a cash storage certificate to the plaintiff is not recognized - The defendant's defense that the defendant's issuance of a cash storage certificate to the plaintiff constitutes a non-career indication or a false conspiracy constitutes a false representation. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only with the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. The defendant defenses to the effect that the defendant exempted the defendant from the above loan obligations.
The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established because there is no dispute on the part of the plaintiff's signature. The plaintiff prepared the document under the condition that the part of Paragraph 5 was not written, and the defendant voluntarily supplemented it. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit) according to the statement of Item 6, February 26, 2016.