The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Chief;

A. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant by remitting KRW 50,000 to the Defendant’s account on April 20, 2017, and the Defendant did not pay the said money.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits (contested to the Plaintiff) shares of 1/2 of the land in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) On December 30, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to make a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate and to make a provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership based thereon in lieu of the repayment of the said loan, and the said loan obligations were extinguished.

C. The Plaintiff’s assertion of rebuttal is based on a provisional registration made in accordance with the promise to sell and purchase the pertinent real estate and thus not filing a lawsuit on the said loan, or the agreement to substitute for the repayment of the said loan is that ① is a juristic act or an unfair juristic act contrary to social order and thus null and void in accordance with Article 103 or 104 of the Civil Act, or that ② the instant real estate, the market price of which exceeds KRW 10,000,000, and is merely KRW 50,000,000, and thus, the agreement was cancelled in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Act.

2. According to the statement No. 1 (including the serial number) in which the Plaintiff admitted the authenticity of the loan, that is, “A” can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff made an agreement on the partial charge of the loan obligations pursuant to the following: “A shall be extinguished with respect to all obligations to be borne by B and shall not raise any civil or criminal objection.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit in protecting rights.

On the other hand, the defendant's ground for invalidation or revocation in relation to the above denial agreement, which is alleged by the defendant, is examined.