1. The defendant's KRW 70 million and about this, 30% per annum from June 22, 2007 to July 14, 2014 to the plaintiff.

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the defendant shall pay 70 million won to the plaintiff on April 24, 2007 by June 21, 2007, and after the payment date, it can be recognized that the statement of performance (hereinafter "the statement of performance of this case") was prepared and executed to pay the interest for delay calculated by 2.5% per month. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30% per annum from June 22, 2007 to July 14, 2014, and damages for delay calculated by 25% per annum from the next day of the due date until the day of repayment.

2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's defense is made by coercion, and thus, the defendant's statement of performance of this case is invalid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the statement of performance of this case was made by duress.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the obligation which was the cause of the instant performance rejection was the guaranteed obligation and the obligation against the principal obligor (the investment bond against C or D) was extinguished upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription period for the commercial claims, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as the obligation which was the cause of the instant performance rejection or as the obligation arising out of commercial activities, and no other evidence exists

(M) In other words, the obligation, which is the cause of the instant performance rejection, is the obligation that promises the performance of the obligation by adding up the damages liability arising from the tort, such as fraud by the Defendant, and the ten-year extinctive prescription period is applied under the Civil Act). 3. Conclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.