The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2018, the Plaintiff decided to invest in the virtual currency called E (Gu F) issued by D upon the Defendant’s recommendation that he/she was hospitalized in Busan Hospital and first known. From January 9, 2018 to February 25, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 24,700,000 to the accounts designated by the Defendant and purchased E equivalent to the said amount.

B. However, as at the time of the investment, unlike the Defendant’s statement to the Plaintiff, the value of E continues to decline, the Plaintiff resisted the same fact to the Defendant, and requested a refund of the investment amount, etc., and the Defendant, on June 10, 2018, requested that the Plaintiff “on January 9, 2018.”

2. On September 30, 2018, after three months of the purchase price of the Plaintiff between 25.24,700,000 won, "the defendant's promise to accept" is "the pledge of this case".

The authenticity of the whole document is presumed as the defendant's signature is written in the above written pledge.

In the first instance court, the defendant asserted that the above written oath was prepared by coercion or intimidation of the plaintiff, but the above argument was withdrawn at the trial.

(C) The Plaintiff signed and signed on the part of the Defendant. The Plaintiff transferred all E owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant following the preparation of the said written pledge (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 4, 6, and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant signed the written oath of this case and purchased all E owned by the plaintiff from the plaintiff, or agreed to return 24.7 million won, which is the full purchase price paid by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 24.7 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant claims that the plaintiff is obligated to sell E owned by the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's request and signed it on the written oath of this case. The defendant did not sign it on the ground as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be accepted.