The case where it was acknowledged that the declaration was made by duress

Without being admitted, it is reasonable to view that the act of accepting obligations or of issuing checks is a declaration of intention by coercion, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, under the threat that it will lead to long-term detention, unless the investigator's office, prosecutor's office, and police station's office are restricted in conduct for not less than 24 hours and the investigator's office, prosecutor's office, and police station's office are restricted in conduct.

Article 110 of the Civil Act

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Respondent

Seoul Civil History District Court (78Ka24660)

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The provisional attachment decision made on June 25, 1978 on the real estate recorded in the separate sheet on June 25, 1978 by the Sungdong branch of the Seoul District Court on the same court of the above parties as to the provisional attachment application case against the real estate.

3. The applicant's request for provisional seizure is dismissed;

4. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the applicant in the first and second instances.

5. Provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

The applicant shall authorize the Seoul District Court's Sungdong Branch's provisional attachment decision on the real estate recorded in the attached list with respect to the real estate of the same court as the above party's claim for provisional attachment against real estate.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent, and the respondent shall have the same judgment as the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The fact that the applicant has a check claim amounting to KRW 73,00,000 against the respondent and filed an application for provisional attachment on the real estate stated in the attached list with the Sungdong Branch of Seoul District Court 78Ka2683 on August 25, 1978 and the above court rendered the provisional attachment order on August 27, 1978; the respondent issued 203,000,000 won at face value to the applicant on July 27, 1978; and the fact that the respondent issued one copy of the check number on December 31, 1978, Korea Commercial Bank's main office business division and the payer bank.

2. The applicant first presented the above check for payment to the Korean Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. which is the drawee on September 13, 1978, but the payment was refused, so the respondent presented the check to the payer on September 13, 1978 that the respondent has the right to demand the payment of the check. On September 13, 1978, the respondent presented the check to the payer on the official blank, and again presented the check to the payer on October 11 of the same year, and the applicant again presented a supplementary notice to the above issue on October 11 of the same year, but the above commercial bank, the drawee, stated the above commercial bank, not the check itself, did not meet the requirements for the exercise of the right to demand payment of the check. Accordingly, the respondent asserted that the applicant does not have the obligation to pay the check. Accordingly, according to the entries on the bill No. 1 (number of shares per 1) without dispute on the establishment, the respondent was issued in blank at the time of issuing the check, but the applicant again presented it to the payer on 197th 19.10.

Thus, when the applicant presents the check on September 13, 1978, the check is presented without supplementing the necessary entries in the check, so it cannot be deemed a legitimate presentation. Even in the case of presentation of supplement to the above publication, it shall not be stated in the check itself, but in the case of presentation of supplement to the above publication, it shall be stated in the preservation of the check itself, and even if it is a guidance on the preservation of the check and the surface, it shall not be recognized as a certification of non-payment that satisfies the requirements prescribed in Article 39 of the Check Act, and as such, the respondent's issuance of the check is legally cancelled as it is recognized by coercion. Thus, the applicant shall not exercise the right of recourse against the respondent or the right of recourse to the check.

3. The Respondent, even though the Respondent did not have the right of recourse against the Respondent as a check holder, the Respondent issued the above check on July 27, 1978, and the non-party 1 Co., Ltd. (the representative director non-party 7- et al. shall be limited to the non-party 7-the-counter company) against the Claimant, upon which the Respondent had the right of recourse to claim the payment of the above amount of the check out of the purchase price of the bill of exchange to be returned or compensated to the Claimant. Thus, the Respondent asserted that the Respondent had the right of recourse to

If the above dispute is not established and evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3 (Certificate of Seal Imprint), 4 (Statement), 6 (Evidence Certificate), 1 (Custody Certificate), 6 (Evidence Certificate), and 6 (Evidence Certificate) of the same Act which are deemed to be established by the testimony of non-party 2 of the party witness, the above witness and non-party 3 and non-party 4's testimony (Provided, That part of the evidence No. 6 which are not trusted and the testimony portion of non-party 4) are combined with the purport of the pleading as a result of the record verification conducted by the court of original judgment, and the non-party 4 decided to secure the applicant's performance of the above evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (Evidence Certificate), 200 through 70 times from August 27, 1977 to February 28, 1978, the above non-party company may purchase the above evidence to the applicant with the same amount of money as the applicant by means of a bill of exchange issued by the shipowner and deliver the remaining amount of exchange within 3050.5 months.07.0

그런데 피신청인 대리인은, 피신청인이 신청인에 대하여 위 신청외 회사의 채무를 인수하였다고 하더라도 이는 동인이 서울지방검찰청에 강제로 연행된 뒤 강박에 의하여 한 의사표시이므로 1978. 9. 7. 신청인에게 그 취소의 통지를 함으로써 적법히 취소되었다고 항변하므로 살피건대, 앞서 든 증거와 성립에 다툼이 없는 소을 제3호증(검증조서), 같은 제4, 5호증(각 증인신문조서등본)의 각 기재내용과 원심법원의 피신청인 본인신문결과에 변론의 전취지를 합쳐보면, 신청인은 위에서 본 바와 같이 위 신청외 회사의 하환어음부정매매에 의하여 막대한 손해를 입게 되자 수사기관에 이를 고발하여 서울지방검찰청에서 위 사건에 관하여 수사를 하게 되었는데 동 수사를 하는 과정에서 신청인이 위 신청외 회사로부터 1978. 2. 28. 매입하였다가 부도처리된 매입가격이 미화 199,983달라이었던 하환어음은 위 신청외 회사 및 피신청인이 대표이사로 있는 신청외 소외 5주식회사의 주거래선인 홍콩소재 소외 5 회사의 램. 비. 멜와니(Ram B. Melwani)가 당초에 소외 5주식회사에 보낸 것을 피신청인이 다시 위 신청외 회사에 양도한 신용장과 관련된 것이며, 위 신청외 회사의 대표이사이던 신청외 소외 7이 위조한 매입가격 금 299,985달라인 하환어음과 관련된 신용장의 피위조자 명의가 피신청인으로 되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 위 신청외 회사가 신청인으로부터 위와 같이 부정한 방법으로 받아간 수출대금중 금 100,000,000원이 서울신탁은행 피신청인의 개인구좌에 입금된 적이 있는 사실이 들어나 위 신청외 회사의 위 하환어음 부정매도사건에 피신청인이 공모, 가담하였을지 모른다는 혐의를 두고 피신청인에 대한 내사를 하게 되었던바, 위 사건을 담당하고 있던 위 지방검찰청 소속 검사는 1978. 7. 26. 14 : 00경 피신청인이 수사기관의 출석요구에 응하지 않는다는 이유로 수사관 2명에게 명하여 피신청인을 위 검찰청에 연행하여 그날밤 10 : 00경까지 위 검사실에서 조사를 하는 일방 피신청인에게 신청인이 위 신청외 회사의 부정행위로 인하여 입은 손해의 일부를 변상하도록 강력하게 종용하다가 피신청인이 이에 불응하자 구속영장도 발부받지 않은 채 경찰관으로 하여금 피신청인에게 수정을 채워 서울 서대문경찰서로 호송케 하여 위 경찰서보호실에 유치시킨 사실, 피신청인은 다음날 13 : 30경까지 위 보호실에 유치되어 있다가 검사의 소환이 있자 위 보호실에서 검찰청까지 수정을 차고 포승에 묶인 채 경찰관에 의하여 호송되어 온 뒤 위 검찰청 5층 505호실에 있는 수사관실에서 대기하고 있던중 같은날 14 : 00경 당시 신청인은행 청계지점 지점장인 소외 8과 신청인은행 검사부장 소외 9, 감사 소외 10 등 3인으로부터 위 홍콩에서 온 신용장과 관련하여 신청인이 손해를 입은 금 203,000,000원을 피신청인이 변상하고 문제를 원만하게 일단락 지을 것을 종용받고 약 3시간 동안 동인들과 논의를 하다가 만약 동인들의 요구에 응하지 아니하면 구속이 되어 신체적으로 고통을 받을 뿐만 아니라 명예도 손상되고 사업에도 막대한 지장을 초래할 것이라고 외포심을 느낀 나머지 같은날 17 : 00경 위 신청외 회사의 신청인에 대한 위 채무중 신청인이 요구하는 금 203,000,000원의 채무를 피신청인이 인수하기로 하고 그 지급방법에 관하여 위에서 본 바와 같은 약정을 하는 동시에 그 이행을 담보하는 의미에서 신청인에게 위 수표를 발행한 뒤 그날로 석방이 된 사실, 한편 피신청인은 위와 같이 사실상의 구금상태에서 위 혐의사실에 관하여 엄중한 추궁을 받았으나 그 자신은 신청인과 아무런 거래관계도 없었을 뿐더러 거래상의 관례에 의하여 위 신용장을 위 신청외 회사에게 양도하였고, 피신청인의 서울신탁은행 개인구좌에 입금되었던 금 100,000,000원도 평소 거래관계로 알게 된 위 회사사장인 소외 7의 부탁에 의하여 입금시켰다가 동인의 지시대로 동인의 가족 및 위 회사직원에게 전액 인출되었음이 판명되었으며 그밖에 더 이상 피신청인이 소외 7의 범행에 가담하였다는 증거가 없어 위 사건의 피의자로 입건조차 되지 아니한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정에 일부 저촉되는 소갑 제5호증의 1, 2(각 증인신문조서등본), 같은 제6호증(검증조서등본)의 각 기재부분과 원심증인 소외 4의 일부증언은 앞서 든 증거에 비추어 믿지 아니하며 달리 위 인정을 뒤집을 자료가 없다.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the respondent's act of expressing his/her intent to assume the above obligation or issuing a check is a declaration of intention by coercion, unless there are special circumstances, unless the respondent is bound to express his/her intent under the threat that he/she will be detained for a long time if the investigator's office, prosecutor's office, and police station protection room are transferred for not less than 24 hours without the respondent being charged with the case of illegal sale of bills of exchange issued by the company other than the above request. If the petitioner combines the contents of the evidence 2-1 (written notice) and the same evidence 2 (written notice) without dispute between the establishment and the fact of receipt, the respondent has notified the applicant on September 7, 1978 that the above assumption of obligation and the check are revoked on the ground that the act of issuing the check was caused by coercion, and thus the above declaration of obligation of the respondent against the applicant is legitimate.

Even if the respondent's expression of intent is made by coercion of the above Respondent's declaration of intent on August 4, 1978, the respondent has confirmed the assumption of the above obligation by providing collateral for the above obligation. Thus, if the defendant has combined the above testimony (except the above reliance part) with each content of evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) as mentioned above, and evidence Nos. 2 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) as the authenticity by the testimony of non-party 4 of the court below, the Respondent's statement of obligation acquisition at the point of the Respondent's Office of Government Administration on August 4, 1978 that the Respondent delivered the above Respondent's statement of obligation acquisition at the first stage of its performance, and it is not reasonable for the Respondent to recognize that the above Respondent's statement of obligation acquisition and the above Respondent's statement of obligation acquisition and the above Respondent's statement of obligation expiration of 187 square meters and the above Respondent's statement of obligation acquisition and delivery of the above 1111-3-3-2 of evidence.

4. In addition, the applicant's representative, as seen above, shall be deemed to have guaranteed the above obligation against the applicant of the above applicant company. Thus, even if the respondent issued the above check and guaranteed part of the obligation against the applicant of the above applicant company, the above guarantee was legally revoked as a declaration of intent by the coercion, and there was no other legitimate ratification, and there is no other reason for the applicant's assertion as to the right to be preserved for the case.

5. Therefore, since the applicant has no right to preserve as provisional seizure of this case, the applicant's request for provisional seizure of this case does not have any reason to further determine the remainder of this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is unfair on the ground that the above court's decision of provisional seizure is revoked and the decision of provisional seizure is revoked, and the applicant's request is dismissed by revocation of the decision of provisional seizure of this case, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the provisional seizure of this Act as

The judge shall have the same effect as the judge of the Yellow Party (Presiding Judge).