beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 남양주시법원 2017.04.27 2016가단213

청구이의

Text

1. The Defendant’s order for payment in the embezzlement case No. 2016 tea835 against the Plaintiff is issued.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant and worked in an agency for mobile communications companies, prepared a loan certificate stating that “The Defendant would pay KRW 3,000,000,000 to February 20, 2016, as he/she embezzled public funds,” as the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

In addition, on the same day, the Defendant prepared a contract stating that “if a public fund is embezzled more than 10,000 won, it shall be repaid KRW 10,000,000” (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On April 6, 2016, the Defendant filed a payment order with the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 13,000,000,000, and on April 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a payment order with the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).”

C. The above payment order was finalized on August 30, 2016, because the Plaintiff did not object to the instant payment order.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that all of the loan certificates and contracts of this case are invalid as anti-social order or unfair legal act, or made by the Defendant’s strong pressure, in light of the content and preparation process, and must be revoked.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant embezzleds agency's public funds after preparing the contract of this case.

B. First of all, there is no evidence to prove that the loan certificate and contract of this case were made by the defendant's strong pressure, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Next, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff stated the details of the embezzlement in the instant loan certificate in detail, the act of preparing the instant loan certificate is anti-social order or social order.