1. Each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendants to the following.

2. Additional determination

A. The third agreement of this case, which was the mother of the agreement of this case as well as the agreement of this case, of the defendants, shall be revoked since it was concluded by the coercion of the president of the D District Association M and the executive director F (the husband of the plaintiff).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the third agreement of this case and the agreement of this case based on its mother is valid is without merit.

B. On May 11, 2015, Defendant C paid KRW 1,050,000 to the Plaintiff. The fact that the third agreement was concluded between the Defendant Company to guarantee the Defendant C’s obligation. However, the fact that, while entering into the instant agreement between the said parties, “the third agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C (referring to the third agreement in this case) on May 11, 2015, is providing that “the third agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C (referring to the third agreement in this case) is cancelled.” Accordingly, the third agreement in this case has already become null and void due to the agreement between the parties pursuant to the instant agreement without cancelling the new agreement. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on the third agreement in this case is without merit.

Meanwhile, as long as the agreement of this case remains effective, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount under the agreement.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the defendant, including the statement of No. 22, which was additionally submitted in the trial, is insufficient to acknowledge that the agreement of this case was made based on the plaintiff's coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the defendants' assertion is without merit even if it is no mother.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate.