A. In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 2 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from October 17, 2017 to July 6, 2018, for which the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served to the defendant, as the plaintiff's request, on October 17, 2017, inasmuch as the defendant confirmed the borrowing of KRW 15% per annum (interest rate) to the plaintiff on October 17, 2017.

B. As to the determination of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that the money stated in the written statement of this case is only the money invested by the defendant in C (Nonindicted Company) that was the representative director, and it is not the money borrowed by the defendant. Thus, the defendant does not have any reason to pay it to the plaintiff, and each of the written statements of this case was made in a state where the defendant's ability to make a decision was extremely limited or completely deprived of the defendant's ability to make a decision by coercion, such as continuous verbal abuse, intimidation, etc. after the failure of the non-party company

However, as alleged by the Defendant, even if the money recorded in the instant notes was invested in the business of the original sub-committee, the Defendant appears to have recognized it as a loan by the preparation of each of the instant notes and agreed on the debt burden. In full view of the circumstances such as the fact-finding results of the court’s fact-finding on the National Police Agency alone, it is insufficient to recognize the fact-finding by the Plaintiff’s coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's conclusion