채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted an invalid juristic act or defective declaration of intent was embezzled of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 in cash, while working as the delivery source in the Chinese restaurant operated by the Defendant. However, the Defendant, using this, threatened the Plaintiff to file a criminal complaint and send it to the reduction house without preparing a promissory note No. 1 stated in the purport
The defendant saw the plaintiff's intimidation, and prepared and ordered the above promissory note Notarial Deed, which is null and void as an unfair legal act. The plaintiff's act of preparing a family notarial deed is valid.
Even if it constitutes a defective declaration of intention by coercion, it is revoked.
Therefore, since the above promissory note notarial deed is null and void or loses its validity, it is sought to deny compulsory execution based on it.
B. The counterclaim of offset is that the Plaintiff is in arrears with the total of 11,561,752 won of wages and retirement allowances against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s above overdue wage claim against the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s promissory note payment claim against the Defendant are offset on an equal amount.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above promissory note notarial deed should not be permitted as to the part extinguished by the above set-off.
2. Determination
A. Even if all of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s assertion of invalid juristic act or defective declaration of intent, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s preparation of notarial deed was derived from the Plaintiff’s portrait, rashness and experience, or was caused by the Defendant’s coercion. The Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this is without merit, as there is no other evidence to
B. The written evidence No. 3 of the offset defense alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff has a claim against the defendant for overdue wages as alleged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's offset defense based on this premise cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion.