1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 1, 2015, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a performance agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) stating that “In respect of a debt set forth by creditors, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the amount of debt 50,000,000 won, the kind of debt, the amount of debt due, the amount of debt 20%, the amount of delay damages due, and the amount of delay damages due, the obligor shall approve the fact that the obligor bears the said debt, and if the obligor fails to perform the said monetary obligation, he/she shall be aware that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution” (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s Nonghyup Bank under the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 2016TTTB2494 [The damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 11, 2016 to June 14, 2016], and received a seizure and collection order of the said court on June 16, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed to liquidate a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which were in a personal relationship.

At the time, the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant until March 10, 2016, on the condition that “the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff’s past history, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s past experience, etc. to the third party or interested parties related to the Plaintiff,” and the Plaintiff prepared the instant authentic deed on October 1, 2015.

However, around December 2015, the defendant suffered from other women related to the plaintiff, due to a wide scope of private information, such as the plaintiff's past experience and gender relationship, so the relationship between the plaintiff and the above women has been broken down to the extent that it is impossible to recover.

Therefore, as long as the Defendant breached the duty of omission of the agreement under the condition of rescission as above, the Defendant’s Plaintiff on the Notarial Deed of this case.