beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that: (a) as the instant vehicle was destroyed due to an accident while driving a C-Id vehicle leased from the Plaintiff on September 9, 2016 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); and (b) the Defendant written a written statement of performance of obligation and a written statement of payment (hereinafter “written statement of payment, etc.”) stating that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 65 million to the Plaintiff by October 31, 2017, with the cost of parts and the cost of repairing the instant vehicle, etc. as well as the cost of repairing the instant vehicle.
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 1, 2017, the following day after the above payment date, to May 21, 2018, and from May 21, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019).
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, despite the fact that the used price of the instant vehicle at the time of the accident is KRW 40,00,000 through KRW 42,00,00,000, the Plaintiff made it to the Defendant, and that, by threatening the Defendant to “I do not prepare a brush book, it would be impossible to leave the Plaintiff’s office unless I do so. It would not be possible for the Defendant to do any work at any other place,” the Defendant would pay KRW 65,00,00 to the Defendant for the payment of KRW 65,00,00,000,000 to the Defendant’s payment angle, etc., pursuant to Article 110(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant revoked
However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant prepared the instant payment note, etc. by the Plaintiff’s coercion. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion