beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from September 1, 2014 to August 21, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 of the facts of recognition No. 1, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that, on July 11, 2014, the Defendant prepared a note that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff by the end of August 201, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant statements”), and there is no counter-proof.
2. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 50,000,000 under the instant written statement, and the damages for delay under each interest rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from September 1, 2014 to August 21, 2015, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, from September 21, 2014, to September 30, 2015, 20% per annum from the following day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. Each of the defenses in this case by the defendant's declaration of intention is invalid because the plaintiff, at the plaintiff's office, offered to the defendant that goods owned by the plaintiff are destroyed by the plaintiff, and did not prepare each of the plaintiff's office, but did not return it to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's statement of intention constitutes an expression of intention of non-influence and thus, it is invalid.
(2) Each of the instant claims to be revoked as a declaration of intention by duress is prepared by the Plaintiff’s coercion as it is, in the course of protesting the Defendant, by the Plaintiff’s coercion, as it is, the Plaintiff’s choice. Therefore, it should be revoked as it was made by duress.
B. (1) According to Article 107 of the Civil Act of the judgment on the defense of the intention of the truth-finding, the declaration of the intention of the truth-finding also becomes effective, and if the other party knew or could have known that he was not a truth-finding, it may be invalidated. Thus, only the statement of the evidence No. 3 and the result of the Defendant’s personal examination, are not the fact-finding of the Plaintiff at the