1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the defendant in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant makes an additional determination as to the argument in the appellate court under paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to

Of all, the summary of the part against the Defendant, which is subject to the appellate trial’s judgment, is that the Defendant paid KRW 86,800,000, interest rate of KRW 630,000 to the Plaintiff by December 1, 2017, among the principal and interest agreed to be paid to the Plaintiff via the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest of KRW 93,100,000 and delay damages after January 1, 2018.

2. Judgment as to the defendant's argument at the appellate court

A. The Defendant asserts that around December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff did not prepare a new loan certificate of KRW 33,200,000 of the agreed principal at the time of payment of the agreed principal to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the balance of the agreed principal and interest.

However, this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable, since the defendant's duty under the existing agreement is not extinguished solely on the basis of internal concern.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the monetary payment agreement of the defendant, based on the plaintiff's coercion and intimidation, should be null and void or cancelled.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff forced or threatened the Plaintiff to the extent that it deviates from social norms at the time of preparing the instant loan certificate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

C. The defendant used the loan certificate of this case for the purpose of filing a complaint against the defendant's husband's wife C and filing the lawsuit of this case, which is an abuse of the loan certificate in violation of the implied use condition of the loan certificate. Thus, the defendant's certificate of loan is based on the loan certificate.