1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the partial modification as follows, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff threatened the plaintiff to file a complaint against the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act," and that the defendant's acceptance of the request from the deceased C to the effect that "the above repayment certificate has no effect since it was made by the plaintiff's coercion." Thus, in order to be a declaration of harm by coercion, the other party's expression of harm should be made by illegal notification and expression of intent. Thus, in order to make a notice of harm illegal, it should be the one that the other party feel fear and made a declaration of harm. In order to make it illegal, it is difficult to find that the content of harm that the harm was not legitimate or notified to the other party as a means of coercion is inappropriate as a means to achieve the profit pursued by the notice of harm in light of the transactional notion at the time of coercion act, or that the notice of harm was inappropriate as a means to achieve the profit pursued by the above notice of harm in light of the transactional concept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72643, Feb. 11, 2010).

2. Conclusion.