1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where “value-added tax” is used as “value-added tax” for the statement of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Therefore, this part of the reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on Defendant B’s request, Defendant C made verbal abuse and intimidation against the Plaintiff, and forced Defendant C to make a written confirmation and pay money.

Therefore, since each of the statements, commitments, certificates, etc. prepared by the plaintiff to the defendant B is by the coercion of the defendant C, they shall be revoked.

Ultimately, since the Plaintiff’s 52,507,150 won paid to the Defendants was threatened to the Plaintiff by intimidation, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 52,507,150 as tort damages.

B. 1) Determination 1) In order to constitute a declaration of harm by duress, the other party should have expressed his/her intent to feel fear due to the other party’s unlawfully notifying of any harm. Here, for the purpose of being unlawful, the act of coercioning a certain harm and injury should fall under cases where the profit pursued by the threat of harm and injury is not justifiable in light of the transaction concept and overall circumstances at the time of the coercion act, or the content of harm and injury notified to the other party as a means of coercion violates the legal order, or where the notice of harm and injury is inappropriate as a means to achieve the profit pursued by the threat of harm and injury in light of the transaction concept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72643, Feb. 11, 2010). 2) As to the instant case, it is acknowledged by the overall purport of pleading and pleading as follows: health class, the above basic facts, evidence No. 6, No. 1, 2, 9 through 13, 15, 16, and 18 evidence.