1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Chapter 1 (Unfair Juristic Act) as to July 28, 2015 that the Defendant borrowed KRW 21.1 million to the Plaintiff on July 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff at the time of July 28, 2015, with the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff as of July 28, 2015, as of July 28, 2015, constituted an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, and thus, is null and void. (2) The Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff during the period when the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in relationship with the Plaintiff is jointly liable to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff as of September 19, 2014 is the amount calculated by deducting the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) As to Chapter 1, Article 104 of the Civil Act provides, “A juristic act which has manifestly lost fairness due to the party’s poverty, rashness, or inexperience shall be null and void.” The unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act is established in cases where the injured party was in the state of poverty, rashness, or inexperience, and the other party was aware of the circumstances on the part of the injured party, and was engaged in a juristic act in which there is an objective obvious imbalance between payment and consideration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da50308, Jul. 15, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is examined, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s act of borrowing the instant certificate constitutes an unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act.