1. The Defendants together with the Plaintiff KRW 39,183,00 and 5% per annum from December 18, 2008 to May 30, 2014.

1. Around October 2008, the Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, and around October 2008, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant D with goods such as women’s clean settlement

(2) The Defendants issued a promissory note of KRW 39,183,000 at par value as the Defendants urged the payment of the goods.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 39,183,000 won for goods and damages for delay.

2. Although the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is not clear, it is judged that the Defendants are claiming for payment of KRW 39,183,000 with the amount of goods or promissory notes.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the goods were supplied to Defendant D with respect to the claim for the purchase price of goods.

Even if the delivery was made to E, the liability for payment is made to E.

Therefore, since there is no basis to claim the payment of the goods to the Defendants, the assertion of the goods price cannot be accepted.

B. According to Gap's assertion on promissory note gold, the defendants are obligated to jointly pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,183,000 on November 18, 2008 and the amount of KRW 39,183,00 on December 17, 2008, and delay damages from December 18, 2008.

As to this, the Defendants threatened the Plaintiff and Defendant D with the organized violence vessels;

The above promissory note asserts to the effect that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because it was made by coercion.

In this regard, each statement in sub-paragraphs B(1) through (6) to the effect that the Promissory Notes in this case were issued by coercion is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. All of the claims of the Plaintiff on the conclusion of the decision are accepted.