1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 2003, C drafted the notarial deed No. 9422 of the Jeonbuk-dong document (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with respect to the total sum of the amounts borrowed from the Plaintiff, as follows:

The purpose C is to approve that the Plaintiff bears the obligation of KRW 75 million.

By June 27, 2003, the repayment method shall be KRW 75 million.

Of interest of KRW 75 million, interest of KRW 40 million shall be paid from January 26, 1999 to KRW 10 million; from July 10, 1998 to KRW 10 million; from October 5, 1998 to KRW 15 million, interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from November 6, 1998 to the date of full payment.

Damages for delay 25% per annum

B. C died on April 16, 2004, and his spouse is designated D, and his children are the Defendant and the remaining designated parties.

C. On April 29, 2004, the notarial deed of this case (No. 4), it is stated that the debt of C to the plaintiff was fully repaid in accordance with Article 35-2 of the Notary Public Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff alleged that he received KRW 2 million from E on April 29, 2004 and delivered the authentic copy of the notarial deed of this case to E. Since this is null and void as a juristic act by deception or duress or as an unfair juristic act, the plaintiff sought a payment of money lent to C.

B. The written evidence No. 4 of the judgment alone is insufficient to acknowledge whether the Plaintiff had deception or coercion as alleged by the Plaintiff, and whether it constitutes an unfair legal act. There is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion against the Defendant is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant and the designated parties is without merit.