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

The plaintiff is a third-class person with a congenital intellectual disability, and the defendant is a person who lives in neighboring areas of the plaintiff.

On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 15,000,000,000 borrowed from the Defendant on February 15, 2013 to April 25, 2014, in installments, from February 2013 to April 25, 2014, a notary public shall pay KRW 1,00,000 each month, and the interest rate and delay damages rate shall be 30% per annum, and C (the mother of the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally guarantee the obligation of the Plaintiff’s loan” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”).

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on the grounds of the accusation, such as “the Defendant, by threatening the Plaintiff, forced the Plaintiff to take 74,480,000 won and prepare a loan certificate until March 6, 2017, and rape and assaulted.” However, on November 30, 2017, the prosecutor of the regional public prosecutor’s office in the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a non-prosecution disposition (No. 3826, 6167, 6670) that was all suspected of having any suspicion of the above accusation (Evidence of Evidence) (No. 2017, No. 3826, 6167, 200). The Plaintiff filed an appeal (No. 2018, No. 110) but the said appeal was dismissed on January 29, 2018.

【Judgment on the facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading as to the defense prior to the merits of the whole pleadings, the defendant, although the plaintiff initially filed a claim for damages against the defendant for tort, changed the plaintiff's claim to add non-existence of claim for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation stated in the No. notarial deed of this case during the litigation of this case (after that, after the plaintiff withdrawn the claim for damages and eventually, the plaintiff remains liable for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation). Since both parties do not have the identity of the basis of the claim,

The part of the claim for damages is based on tort such as coercion and intimidation of the defendant.