2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In around 198, the Plaintiff came to know of the Defendant through the introduction of a branch, and around that time, the Plaintiff had the Defendant use part of the real estate brokerage office operated by the Plaintiff as an office to carry out the housing site development project for the Defendant. In the process, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6 million to the Defendant.

On April 2, 2003, with respect to the above loans and the fees of the real estate brokerage office, the Defendant drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of payment stating that “this million won, the above amounts are fixed, each letter of payment,” each letter of payment “40 April 30, 2003,” each letter of “the Defendant,” and “the Defendant,” even if considering all the civil and criminal issues at the time of the passage of the date, he would not raise any objection.”

(A) (Evidence A) . 【No. 1’s ground for recognition’s absence of any dispute, and according to the above-mentioned basic facts of determination as to the entry of Evidence A No. 1, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the grounds for claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant contract amount”) and damages for delay, which the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff in the instant payment angle, unless there is any special circumstance.

The defendant asserts that the decision on the defense of the defendant's declaration of intent by coercion of the judgment on the defendant's defense has no effect on the defendant since the plaintiff made and delivered the statement of intent of this case to the plaintiff without any choice but by coercioning the plaintiff on April 2, 2003 when he was working for a large number of people with no name.

Modern, the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, urged the Defendant to do so.

there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant prepared the instant payment note to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The Defendant alleged that the claim of this case was extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription, and thus, was set forth in the letter of payment in this case.