beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,164,00 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 24, 2015 to August 18, 2015.
Reasons
1. In full view of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the Defendant’s defense that each of the above documents was written by the Plaintiff’s coercion, but no evidence exists to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion as seen below), the Defendant prepared on July 22, 201, a loan certificate to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff within three years, and that the Defendant would make the establishment of a right of lease on a deposit basis to secure the payment of the said money.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 60 million and damages for delay, barring special circumstances.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), when the Plaintiff invested in the soup shop business through the Defendant and could not recover the investment money, the Defendant threatened the Defendant, and the Defendant, recognizing that the investor had legal responsibility, prepared the above loan certificate and a written statement, and thus, cancelled the Plaintiff’s intent on the loan certificate and written statement. In addition, the Defendant’s expression of intent to pay KRW 60 million as stated in the above loan certificate and written statement on the written statement on the written statement on the written statement on the basis of the foregoing loan certificate and written statement on the condition that the Defendant would recover the investment money within three years, and the said condition was not fulfilled. The Defendant and C, who is his/her father, paid the principal from 2010 to 2011, made the said loan certificate and written statement on the basis of mistake or coercion.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant agreed to pay money on the condition of the recovery of investment money.
In addition, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 3, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the defendant, at least KRW 60 million, around 2004 or around 2005.