beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 28 million from the Defendant until December 30, 2019, at a notary public C office as of November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption to the effect that compulsory execution is recognized; and (b) completed a notarial deed No. 7333 of the preparation of a notary public’s notarial deed No. 733, 2018. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the notary public office C’s office on January 8, 2019, approved that the Plaintiff bears an obligation of KRW 50 million in the amount of embezzlement related to the business under a monetary loan for consumption as of January 8, 2019; (b) drafted a notarial deed with a intention to commission the Defendant to pay damages for delay by no later than January 15, 2019; and (c) drafted a notarial deed with a two-year agreement for compulsory execution.
C. Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who were a middle school alumni, were in their friendship, they operated at least an adult PC room from March 2018 to November 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant: (a) caused a loss to the PC business for adults working in the same business with the Plaintiff; (b) from November 2018 to April 8, 2019, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to detain the Plaintiff and compensate for economic loss; and (c) the Plaintiff was refused to do so; and (d) the Plaintiff committed assault, intimidation, and injury to the Plaintiff on almost every day; and (e) on November 26, 2018 and January 8, 2019, the Defendant forced the Defendant to do so even though there was no obligation against the Defendant with respect to the Defendant. (hereinafter “each notarial deed of this case”).
was prepared and delivered.
Therefore, each of the notarial deeds in this case is null and void since it is an expression of bad faith by coercion.