beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 30, 2018 to August 28, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Written loan certificate verifying the facts of recognition: Or,00,000 won (50,000) and the above amount shall be paid in full as KRW 15 million on November 5, 2013 in the balance agreed by the Defendant to deduct KRW 10,000,000 in the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff (related to contract deposit C) from the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff (the cost of deducting KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 as of January 25, 2014, and shall be paid in full as of February 25, 2014, and shall be paid in full as KRW 15,00,000 as of February 1, 2014.
On January 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered the following loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”) to the Plaintiff on January 10, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff via the instant loan certificate. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom in accordance with the agreement.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The loan certificate of this case does not mean that the Defendant actually borrowed and prepared money from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff unilaterally reversed the contract deposit and demanded the return of the down payment in order to take over the Busan East-gu Sports Center (hereinafter “C”) located in D, Busan-gu, and unilaterally. The Defendant made criticism and intimidation that the Plaintiff had been using the Defendant’s wife as a public official, even though he was in a situation where penalty should be paid. As such, the Defendant drafted the loan certificate of this case as to the remaining KRW 40 million after deducting KRW 10,000,000,000, which was paid for remodelling construction by the Plaintiff’s coercion. In other words, the loan certificate of this case is merely an agreement to return the down payment that is not obligated to return due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral termination of the contract, and thus, the above agreement is null and void (the Defendant’s attorney at the date of pleading of this case’s assertion at the date of pleading.