On January 201, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to settle the principal and interest of the loan and to pay it accordingly.

Accordingly, on January 9, 201, the Defendant, as the agent of the principal and the Dong C, set KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff at interest rate of 36% per annum, and repaid until July 8, 2011, and the Defendant prepared and issued a loan certificate stating that C’s joint and several debt guarantee for the Plaintiff was guaranteed by C.

(1) The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established on the ground that there is no dispute over the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) evidence Nos. 1-7; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings No. 1; and (c) there is no dispute over each seal of the Defendant and C.

Although the defendant asserts that this document was made by the plaintiff's coercion, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

2. The Defendant, as a joint and several surety, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 100,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the highest interest rate as stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act within the maximum of the agreed interest rate from January 9, 201 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Article 146 of the Civil Code provides that the right of revocation by duress shall be exercised within three years from the date when it can be ratified. The three-year period is not the general extinctive prescription period but the exclusion period has lapsed, and the court should investigate and consider the matters to be considered as a matter of course, regardless of the allegations by the parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da25371, Sept. 20, 1996). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, who was forced to prepare the instant loan certificate by coercion from the Plaintiff, on January 9, 2011.

Furthermore, as the defendant asserts, the plaintiff's coercion.