The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Basic Facts

On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff drafted a loan certificate to the Defendant stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay interest of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant KRW 180,000 per annum, which shall be KRW 4,50,000 per annum. The maturity shall be determined and borrowed on June 30, 2019” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

Meanwhile, the instant loan certificate was prepared as of June 8, 2018 by the Defendant, from around 2014 to around 2018, by arranging the money that the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff several times and received in part.

On June 28, 2019, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not receive the remainder, excluding the principal paid and the interest until December 31, 2018, out of the amount stated in the loan certificate of this case on the ground of the loan certificate of this case, and filed a lawsuit claiming the loan with the Daegu District Court Dolman District Court 2019 Ghana1607.

On June 27, 2019, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 29 million won with 18% interest per annum from January 1, 2019 to the date of full payment." The decision on performance recommendation was finalized on July 16, 2019 after the delivery to the plaintiff on July 1, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion as to judgment, the plaintiff paid all the money borrowed from the defendant from May 23, 2016 to February 8, 2019, including payment of KRW 11,130,000 to the defendant, in addition to the amount of KRW 1,00,000 that the defendant has received repayment from the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff prepared the loan certificate of this case without being allowed by the defendant's coercion, and the defendant used the loan certificate of this case and received the decision of recommendation for execution of this case.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision of execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.

Judgment

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff prepared the loan certificate of this case by the defendant's coercion, and Gap.