청구이의
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant's plaintiff.
1. The reason why the court uses this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part of Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part between 7 and 3 6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, the relevant statement is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the non-permission of compulsory execution
A. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the primary claim is 1) and telephone communications with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant telephone communications”).
3) As to the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability based on the Plaintiff’s notarial deed (hereinafter “instant obligation”).
() Of KRW 30 million, 180,236,50 (119,763,495 won (i.e., KRW 300 million - KRW 180,236,50) declared a final and conclusive declaration of intent to exempt obligations (i.e., KRW 94,763,495 won (i.e., KRW 119,763,495 - 25 million) from obligations remaining after repayment (i.e., KRW 119,763,495), 180,236,505 won) from the Defendant’s obligation (i.e., KRW 30,000), without any condition. Since the Defendant’s declaration of intent to discharge the obligation has a final and conclusive legal effect, the Defendant cannot withdraw the said declaration of intention or attach conditions to the declaration of intent to discharge the obligation, which is a sole and independent act, and the conditions asserted by the Defendant do not have any effect as a pure condition.
However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and evidence presented at the trial court and evidence Nos. 5 through 52-8, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant expressed his/her intent of exemption from liability as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further review. A) Of the instant currency over approximately two hours, as alleged by the Plaintiff, only some of the contents indicated in the following table are extracted (No. 17-1, 2, and 18 of evidence A, and the Defendant exempt the Plaintiff from part of the Plaintiff’s obligation.