beta
Text
1. No. 102 (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an authentic deed of a contract for debt repayment (quasi-loan for consumption) with the amount of debt of KRW 50,000,000, and the Plaintiff, the obligee, and the Defendant (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a certificate of borrowing KRW 27,000,000 that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).
C. Around November 2014, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables based on the instant notarial deed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made in Dong, Inc., a real estate consulting company, and the Defendant also joined the company from April 2013.
The defendant purchased the land of Kimcheon-si in 50 million won (including 11 million won deposited by the defendant and 9.1 million won of unpaid wages).
The Defendant, acting in Gap's own D, etc., threatened the Plaintiff to make the instant notarial deed, and had the Plaintiff prepare the instant notarial deed, despite the absence of any fact that the Plaintiff borrowed part of the notarial deed as the Plaintiff did not fully repay 50 million won of the notarial deed.
Ultimately, the Plaintiff did not borrow money from the Defendant, but prepared the instant notarial deed, etc. to receive a refund of KRW 20,100,000,000 paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to purchase the said land, and the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant totaling KRW 26,30,000 to the Defendant (the amount of the Defendant’s person) on March 10, 2013; KRW 1.5 million on May 2013; and KRW 1.5 million on May 2013; and KRW 33.8 million on the aggregate, there is no loan obligation under the notarial deed.
B. (1) As to the instant notarial deed itself, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notarial deed was drafted by coercion, etc. of the Defendant.