Meanwhile, in the name of E (here the Plaintiff’s spouse), the Plaintiff purchased a Bosch Rexroth automobile (vehicle number F; hereinafter “instant Bosch Rexroth automobile”) in installments. On March 2013, the Defendant received delivery from the Plaintiff of the said Bosch Rexroth automobile and repaid in full the remaining payment of KRW 35,165,984 on May 28, 2013.

Since then, the defendant disposed of the 49,500,000 won to D (C's spouse) .

E. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and sent to the Defendant an explanatory note with the following content (hereinafter “instant explanatory note”).

By October 10, 2013, the above person (referred to the plaintiff) will reimburse the defendant with cash of KRW 35 million.

I will accept any disadvantage in default.

* Cash 10 million won, vehicle loans 25 million won G

F. On April 10, 2014, on behalf of the Plaintiff, the head of H, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff, a representative, receive the purchase price, by setting the amount of KRW 11,00,000,00 from the Defendant to sell the AD motor vehicle (vehicle No. G) owned by H.

[Judgment on the defense of evidence] The plaintiff argues that the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (if a ground for recognition exists, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, and 15, part of the witness C's testimony, and the whole purport of the pleading 【Judgment on the defense of evidence】 The plaintiff Nos. 3 (Dismissal of Evidence) was made by the defendant's coercion.

According to the records of evidence No. 9, and witness C’s testimony, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by Gap’s testimony, Gap’s testimony, Eul’s statement of evidence No. 9, Eul’s statement of evidence No. 12, 13, and 15, and the witness’s testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, are as follows.