1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, on August 29, 2015, lent money to the Defendant operating the packing horse several times in the form of operating expenses, and that the Defendant, on August 29, 2015, written the loan certificate of KRW 3,500,000 [A, “I,” and “I, on the loan of KRW 3,500,000 to the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs)] and the repayment period of the loan of KRW 3,50,000,000] with the term “ October 10” (Evidence No. 2).

(2) According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 2, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (a decision of performance recommendation) with respect to KRW 2,300,000, which the Plaintiff seeks after deducting the Plaintiff from the loan on the loan certificate of this case the Plaintiff received a partial repayment from the Defendant, as well as damages for delay calculated from April 2, 2016 to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant expressed his/her intention by duress was in an internal relationship with the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff did not borrow money from the plaintiff, he/she inevitably prepared the certificate of loan in this case by threatening the defendant's wife to have his/her identity widet, and the plaintiff's expression of intent in the certificate of loan should be revoked as it is by duress.

The statement Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize that the loan certificate of this case was made by duress, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that, around October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff sold gold stuffs owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiff paid the instant loan amount of KRW 5,387,00 to the Plaintiff after having sold the gold stuffs owned by the Defendant.

However, the defendant's statement Nos. 3 and 4 alone is the case of this case.