A. On May 30, 2017, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) with the purport that “The Plaintiff shall repay the loan amount of KRW 13 million up to June 30, 2017, and shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum to the Plaintiff when delay is delayed.”

B. The Defendant respectively drafted to C and D a 13 million won loan certificate, and to E a 17.4 million won loan certificate.

C. After doing so, the Defendant prepared a letter of payment (Evidence A 3) stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay 56,400,000 won in total to the Plaintiff, C, D, and E,” to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from July 1, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the due date, to the day of full payment, unless there are other special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of KRW 13 million received from the plaintiff is only investment funds, not loan funds, and is not obligated to repay. The defendant asserts to the effect that it is merely a loan certificate (Evidence A1) and a payment note (Evidence A3) by the plaintiff's duress.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that evidence Nos. 1 and 3 was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, insofar as the authenticity of evidence A Nos. 1 and 3 is recognized, even if the nature of the original amount was an investment, it shall be deemed that the Defendant agreed to pay the amount corresponding to the said investment to the Plaintiff, so the Defendant’s liability for payment is recognized.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. In addition, the defendant asserts that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because he is currently in the current application for individual rehabilitation. However, the defendant's application for individual rehabilitation alone is the plaintiff's litigation.