A. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff, a company manufacturing and selling copies, etc., entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply C products in the amount of KRW 968 million. 2) While the Defendant delayed the payment of the installment of the above supply contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, around March 2018, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall recover the said products, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 38 million as compensation for damages by May 15, 2018.”

(hereinafter “Agreement in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,8420,000 won remaining after deducting 1,9580,000 won, which the plaintiff was paid as principal until August 9, 2018, and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from August 4, 2018, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, until May 28, 2019, which is the date of the ruling of the first instance, until May 28, 2019, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The argument in this case is that the agreement is concluded by deception or coercion of the employees of the Plaintiff Company, or is in violation of good morals and other social order, or is considerably unfair due to the Defendant’s poverty, rashness, and inexperience.

Therefore, the agreement of this case is null and void or there is a ground for revocation of the agreement of this case.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s employee constituted an agreement in this case by deceiving or coercioning the Defendant, and further, Article 103 of the Civil Act applies to the agreement in this case.