2. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the above loan certificate is presumed to have been a juristic act as stated in the so-called disposal document, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which the plaintiff seeks from January 1, 2015 to December 2018, as requested by the plaintiff, within the scope stated in the loan certificate, as the sum of KRW 48 million per annum from January 1, 2015 to December 1, 2018.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's coercion, and it was prepared differently from the fact although it was not actually borrowed money, and that there is no obligation to repay as stated above.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the loan certificate of this case was prepared by the plaintiff's forced execution, and even if the loan certificate of this case is not borrowed money according to the defendant's assertion, according to the statement of the loan certificate and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant merely prepared the loan certificate of this case in the purport that the defendant would pay back the existing transaction obligation and the obligation of the existing transaction is equivalent to the loan. The defendant's defense cannot be accepted, since there is no evidence to support

B. The Defendant must deduct processing as stated in the certificate of borrowing, and the Defendant is merely obligated to pay the amount up to KRW 36,553,421, which is calculated by deducting the amount from the amount when it is converted into Chinese currency.