[1] The case affirming the judgment below which held that the act of preparing a notarial deed of promissory notes of KRW 170,000,000 as agreed money at the place where it is to be raised in a simple way does not constitute an unfair juristic act

[2] Whether a failure to explain whether the assertion that a juristic act is null and void as an unfair juristic act is included in the assertion that it is null and void constitutes a violation of the duty of explanation (negative)

[3] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the act of compelling a person in the position to be accused to prepare a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 170,000,000 with agreed money does not constitute an unlawful coercion for an unlawful purpose

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that where a person with a significant social status and reputation in local communities conspired with a woman and filed a complaint from the deceased's spouse, it can be deemed that his/her social reputation is respected and detained, but it cannot be deemed that the deceased's spouse actively used the other party's address and actively used the other party's address, the act of preparing a promissory note No. 170,000,000 won cannot be deemed as an unfair legal act

[2] The assertion that a juristic act is null and void as an unfair juristic act does not constitute an unlawful violation of the duty to explain, on the ground that the assertion that it is null and void includes the assertion that it is null and void.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that a complaint and accusation against an unlawful act generally cannot be deemed unlawful if it is not for the purpose of unjust enrichment, and it is not for the purpose of unjust enrichment, and that a defendant's spouse cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful coercion for the purpose of unjust enrichment, in case where the defendant's spouse received 170,000,000 won agreement in return for the non-appeal, etc.

[1] Article 104 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 110 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da84 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2007), Supreme Court Decision 93Da6409 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3173), Supreme Court Decision 94Da46374 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2141), Supreme Court Decision 96Da34061 delivered on November 12, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3573) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da25120 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong193, 595)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Ho-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Jeong-tae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na1695 delivered on October 10, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the fifth ground for appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant conspireds with the non-party 1, who is his wife, caused the non-party 1 to withdraw the money of this case from the plaintiff by using it. Even if it is not so, the non-party 1 and the plaintiff came to know of the non-wheeled relationship with the non-party 1, and the plaintiff was threatened with the non-party 1 to make a joint intimidation with the plaintiff to withdraw the money from the plaintiff. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below. The court below's above recognition and judgment are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence as argued in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the above facts, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-indicted 0's non-party 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 0's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-1'

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

In light of the process leading to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the lower court determined that the preparation of the said promissory note Nos. 170,000,000 won was not caused by the Defendant’s coercion, on the ground that the Plaintiff offered economic compensation to the Defendant in order to be exempted from criminal punishment due to the adultery rather than by the Defendant’s intimidation, and that the Defendant accepted it and decided the amount as KRW 200,000,000 at the end of the compromise between the two parties, but finally agreed that the preparation of the said promissory note No. 170,000 was not caused by the Defendant’s coercion.

Generally, a complaint or accusation against an unlawful act cannot be deemed unlawful if it is not for the purpose of unfair profit (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da25120, Dec. 24, 1992). Thus, in this case, the defendant received a settlement amount of KRW 170,000,000 from the consideration of not filing a complaint against the plaintiff, who was the head of the Gwangju Metropolitan City’s Pharmaceutical Association, in the light of the fact that the defendant received a settlement of KRW 170,000,000 from the consideration of not filing a complaint against the plaintiff, which was the head of the Gwangju Metropolitan City’s Pharmaceutical Association, the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act for the purpose of unfair profit, and according to the records, the plaintiff’s coercion cannot be deemed to have reached the above agreement due to the defendant’s coercion. Thus, the

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The court below's fact-finding, pointing out in the grounds of appeal, is an additional fact-finding in preparation for the plaintiff's assertion that the motive mistake is included in the plaintiff's assertion, and it cannot be viewed as the ground of appeal as a matter of fact-finding of this part of the court below, and it cannot be viewed as affecting the judgment of the court below as to a juristic act by unfair juristic act or coercion. Thus, there is no ground for appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)