beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In around 2019, the Plaintiff received a solicitation from the Defendant that “D, who is the children of Defendant branch, would have been employed as music and professor.” The Plaintiff said that “E, who is the professor of the university having a son with the Plaintiff, is expected to take over the G university along with F, and if you want to take over KRW 300 million to E, D may be employed as a practical music and professor of the G university.”
B. On May 30, 2019, the Plaintiff received KRW 310 million from the Defendant on the pretext of the gold and guard for D’s solicitation for recruitment of professors.
(c)
Since then, D did not employ professors, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return the said money.
Accordingly, on January 20, 2020, the Plaintiff, jointly with E and F, issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 400 million, the date of payment, March 10, 2020, and delivered to the Defendant a promissory note with each of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory note”), and on the same day, a notary public drafted C in 2020, that “if the amount of the said note is not paid by the due date for payment, compulsory execution shall be recognized” under subparagraph 11 of Article 2020.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant paid KRW 310 million to the plaintiff constitutes an illegal cause for payment as a reward for recruitment of professors and for expenses. Thus, the plaintiff is not obligated to return the above money to the defendant.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff prepared a fair deed of this case with the purport to pay more than KRW 310 million that was actually paid to the defendant by intimidation and coercion by the defendant, and the fair deed of this case is prepared formally in order to show that the plaintiff and the defendant can recover the above money between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it is not effective.
Therefore, this case.