2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 2,20,000,000 won to the joint defendant 1 and 2 of the first instance trial (non-party 2 of the Supreme Court decision) and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from March 16, 2002 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 2.2 billion against the Defendant, and the cause of the claim is ① a tort claim due to deception, ② a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, ③ a claim based on a return agreement, and the court of the first instance partly accepted the claim pursuant to the return agreement, and dismissed the claim for damages due to the tort and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. The subject of the judgment by this court is limited to the claim pursuant to the above return agreement.

2. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

A total of 2.2 billion won (2.5 billion won on March 28, 2000 + 500 billion won on April 25, 2000 + 200 million won on May 16, 2000 + 200 million won on March 16, 2002) were provided to the Defendant for the exchange of old rights currency. After that, the Defendant promised to return the above 2.2 billion won on several occasions from February 5, 2005 to several occasions, and in particular, on June 9, 2005, the Defendant agreed to prepare a “written promise to pay” and return it. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above 2.2 billion won under the return agreement.

B. Defendant’s assertion

From May 2004, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the above 2.2 billion won and exercised violence. Accordingly, on February 5, 2005, the Defendant proposed that the Plaintiff will discontinue any more violence and return the principal to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff would not cause water as a matter of political fund. However, the Plaintiff did not have a return agreement upon the Plaintiff demanded payment of 25 billion won. The Plaintiff’s return agreement as of June 9, 2005 was already made in the state of coercion due to the Plaintiff’s assault, intimidation, confinement, etc., and was not effective. Even if the said return agreement is valid, as long as the Plaintiff provided the money for the illegal purpose of acquiring illegal money, the Plaintiff’s claim for return pursuant to the return agreement to the Defendant is not allowed.

4. Determination

A. Nature of the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (3.2 billion won)

The reasoning for this part of the Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the “3.2 billion won paid by the Plaintiff” from 2 to 9th of the following 7 pages for the first instance court’s judgment; and (b) thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(b) Occurrence of liability to pay agreed amounts;

As acknowledged earlier, in full view of the fact that the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff that he would return the money that he received from the Plaintiff several times, and considering the entries in Gap evidence 25, 26, 29, and the testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings by the witness of the first instance and the first instance trial, the Defendant expressed his intent to return the above 2.2 billion won to the Plaintiff several times, and in particular, on June 9, 2005, made an explicit agreement to pay the above money by preparing a "statement of performance guarantee", and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the above 2.2 billion won and delay damages to the Plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement.

C. Judgment on the defendant's defense

(1) Claim for revocation by duress

The reasoning for this part of the Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) evidence additionally submitted at the trial and the non-party 3’s testimony is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s act of coercion as evidence; and (b) other than the rejection of non-party 4 to 11 to 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court’s 10th to 10th 14th

(2) The assertion regarding illegal consideration

When property or labor is provided in violation of good morals and other social order, it shall be subject to Article 746 of the Civil Act and shall not be claimed for the return of such benefit. Furthermore, in a case where an agreement is made to return other benefits in lieu of the benefit or the benefit, such agreement is ultimately null and void as it falls under the category for which the return of the illegal consideration is sought (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da51994 delivered on July 14, 1995).

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid KRW 220 million to the Defendant on the basis of the exchange of old sphere currency, which is non-financial resources illegally created by the former political power, through the introduction by Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance trial. This constitutes a case where the purpose of the payment is in violation of good morals and other social order, and thus, it cannot be claimed for its return. Meanwhile, Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance trial attempted to exchange old sphere money directly from the Defendant, and eventually, he did not bring money to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not make any effort for the exchange of old sphere currency, and the Defendant also did not make any effort for the exchange of old sphere currency. In light of the above, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of exchange of old sphere currency from May 203, 200, the Defendant could no longer hold the above money, and therefore, it appears that the above return agreement was made without any choice, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s claim for the return of illegal consideration can not be seen as having been made based on the above agreement.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)