As to the money received from the Plaintiff, Defendant C asserts to the effect that “the money was received in the state of marriage with Plaintiff D, and is not obligated to return or complete payment to the Plaintiff.”

However, the above assertion is contrary to the contents of the cash custody certificate (No. 1) in the above defendant's name, which is a disposal document (the above defendant's written cash custody certificate must be inevitably prepared by intimidation and coercion from the plaintiff's side, and its expression of intent should be invalidated or revoked. However, no evidence exists to prove that such intimidation and coercion had been made). Thus, it is inconsistent with the argument that the above defendant paid money to the plaintiff as interest before the preparation of the above cash custody certificate, and thus, cannot be accepted.

Defendant B alleged to the effect that the aforementioned cash custody certificate was forged on the cash custody certificate (No. 2) in the above Defendant’s name. However, this cannot be accepted as it goes against the appraiser E’s appraisal result to the effect that “the unmanned with the above Defendant’s cash custody certificate is the same as the unmanned with the right side of the above Defendant,” and the authenticity of the said cash custody certificate is recognized.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount, and Defendant C is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 20, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants against the defendants shall be accepted for each reason.