beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that from January 2010 to October 2013, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 11,414,000 to the Defendant in relation to the delivery of the newspaper site. The Defendant, as a person authorized to distribute dividends to the cargo vehicles to be delivered the newspaper site, urged the Plaintiff as if he did not distribute the newspaper site to the cargo vehicles including the Plaintiff, and received KRW 11,414,00 from the Plaintiff as if he did not distribute the newspaper site. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case by coercion revoked the Plaintiff’s act of paying the fee to the Defendant, and sought a refund of the amount equivalent to the above money to the Defendant.
2. The fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 7,879,000 from the Plaintiff in connection with the delivery of the newspaper site from around November 2010 to March 2013 is no dispute between the parties.
However, in order for a declaration of harm to be a declaration of harm by coercion, the other party should have made a fear and expression of harm due to the other party’s unlawfully notifying of the harm. Here, in order to make a threat of harm illegal, it shall fall under cases where the profit pursued by the threat of harm and injury is not justifiable in light of the transactional concept and overall circumstances at the time of the coercion act, or where the content of harm and injury notified to the other party as a means of coercion is inappropriate as a means to achieve the profit pursued by the threat of harm and injury in light of the transaction concept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72643, Feb. 11, 2010), and the testimony of the witness A 2 through 4, and the witness C of the trial party alone is insufficient to recognize that the payment of money by the Plaintiff was made by the threat of harm and injury and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.