1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgments are added with respect to the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the defendant's grounds of appeal in this case is that the plaintiffs threatened the defendant to file a complaint with embezzlement and received the seal imprint certificate from the defendant, and thus, it cannot be recognized as effective. The agreement in this case is made by the plaintiffs' intimidation and is null and void because it constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order or an unfair juristic act. Even if valid, it is revoked as a juristic act

(A) Therefore, the defendant does not have a duty to pay money under the agreement of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. Each of the written evidence Nos. 10 and 11 (including each number), which, by reviewing the judgment, made a written agreement of this case at will, by threatening the plaintiffs to threaten the defendant, and received the certificate of seal impression, and made the agreement of this case.

or the agreement in this case is contrary to social order or constitutes an unfair juristic act, or is not recognized as due to the defendant's mistake, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(A) According to the statements of evidence Nos. 21 through 24, even if the plaintiffs notified the defendant that they would file a criminal complaint in the course of the preparation of the agreement of this case, it is merely a notification of the fact that "the defendant would find the facts embezzled during the process of the operation of the business and make legal countermeasures," and it is difficult to view that the defendant has notified the defendant of harm to the extent that it would cause fear to the defendant, and that the defendant had recognized his own responsibility to the plaintiffs). Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiffs' claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of all the reasons.