On March 3, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant operated a mutually named restaurant “D” in Suwon-gu Busan as business funds, such as the above money.

On October 2018, the defendant returned the above KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 2 of the judgment as to the ground for a claim as to the whole of the pleadings, it is acknowledged that the defendant agreed on November 11, 2018 to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 18 million to the plaintiff on November 11, 2019 through September 25, 2019 (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"). Barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 18 million and delayed damages to the plaintiff (the above KRW 30 million is not an investment but an interest-free loan. Thus, since the agreement of this case was concluded after the defendant returned the above KRW 30 million to the plaintiff with the full repayment of the debt, the agreement of this case cannot be deemed as being subject to interest restriction, etc.). The defendant's declaration of intent as to the defense of this case cannot be deemed as null and void as the defendant's declaration of intent in accordance with the agreement of this case.

In order to be a declaration of intent by coercion, the other party should feel fear due to the other party’s notification of any harm and injury. In order to invalidate a legal act as a defective declaration of intention by duress, the degree of coercion does not merely cause the other party to feel fear by the mere illegal prejudice notification, but only the external appearance of the legal act is created by the declaration of intention in a state where the person who made the declaration of intent completely deprived of the possibility to make the decision.