2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff defendant received a supply of B coastal maintenance project ordered by the Incheon Vindication-gun, and the plaintiff is the head of the above construction site office.

The defendant agreed that the construction cost shall be KRW 109,027,00,000, which the plaintiff expected, should be paid to the plaintiff, and the construction cost shall be paid to the potteries.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a promissory note of KRW 109,027,000 from the Defendant, and completed the construction work as KRW 65,408,060, after the Plaintiff received a seizure and assignment order for the Defendant’s claim for construction payment against the potter-gun.

However, by threatening the plaintiff to file a complaint on embezzlement of 7,867,210 won, the defendant made a letter of commitment that the plaintiff would waive his right to claim attachment and assignment order.

The defendant's act is null and void due to a juristic act contrary to social order, and since the plaintiff renounced his right by the defendant's coercion, the service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 65,408,060 won received due to the waiver of the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Since Defendant Notarial Deed was prepared without a cause claim or fully repaid the amount on the Notarial Deed, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a letter of waiver on the assignment order of claims seizure and assignment order.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2014, the Defendant subcontracted the Plaintiff, who is the site manager, to complete the construction work within the scope of KRW 109,027,00 on February 9, 2015, while receiving KRW 124,79,000 for B coastal maintenance work from the Vindication-gun.

On February 9, 2015, the Defendant made and issued to the Plaintiff a notarized deed of promissory notes of KRW 109,027,000 with respect to the construction cost as above.

B. On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff received an order to attach the Defendant’s claim for construction price against the Jinjin-gun as a notarial deed of the said promissory note and to complete the attachment thereof.

(In Mancheon District Court 2015 Taz. 5808).