beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 141,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 14, 2018 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around July 2008, the Plaintiff is a director of C Co., Ltd. and invested more than KRW 200 million to the Defendant, who had been operating the said company, and the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant regarding the amount of investment, etc.
B. On February 19, 2010, the Defendant drafted a power of attorney (Evidence A No. 4) containing a statement that “the Plaintiff had received an investment of KRW 23,000,000 from the Plaintiff and promised to refund the said investment amount,” and on February 20, 2010, the Plaintiff was resolved by the Defendant on February 20, 2010, on the following: “I will not be held liable for civil and criminal liability, and will also withdraw a criminal complaint against B currently under way.”
(B) On March 4, 2010, after drawing up the complaint against the Defendant, the complaint was revoked on March 4, 2010. [Grounds for recognition] The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, and Eul evidence 1 (if any, including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The Defendant’s main defense on the Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s main defense is a defense that the instant lawsuit, which was brought against the agreement on the Plaintiff’s written confirmation of the instant lawsuit, is unlawful, since the Defendant made an agreement on the instant written confirmation. 2) The agreement on the instant lawsuit, which is one of the passive litigation requirements, is permissible when the agreement is limited to a specific legal relationship as it is within the scope of the right to be disposed of by the parties to the agreement. The agreement on the lawsuit, which gives rise to the effect of a serious litigation law, such as the waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution to the parties to the lawsuit, shall be valid as to the circumstances anticipated at the time of the agreement, and if there is any disagreement on the existence or scope of its validity, it
Supreme Court Decision 98Da63988 Decided March 26, 1999 and Supreme Court Decision 98Da63988 Decided November 2013.