1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff invested KRW 20 million in the Dispute Settlement Bank D, which was known to the plaintiff's husband on September 19, 2013, in which the defendant Eul, who was the husband of the defendant Eul, was working, but did not receive a refund of the investment money by December 19, 2013, the date of the initial agreement. The plaintiff and the defendant Eul agreed to return the investment amount of KRW 20 million to the plaintiff by January 14, 2014 as stated in Gap evidence No. 1 (hereinafter "the agreement in this case"), and each of the defendant Eul's joint and several sureties is recognized.

According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 20 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 23, 2015 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendants asserted and asserted that the agreement of this case is invalid or revoked because they were merely employees of the company D and they did not have any responsibility to return the investment amount of this case, and they did not have any responsibility to return it, and thus, they concluded the agreement of this case by the coercion of the plaintiff and her husband.

However, the evidence presented by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and her husband entered into the instant agreement according to her husband’s coercion, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise.

Rather, in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the evidence as seen earlier, it is only recognized that Defendant C had expressed its intent to “to resolve the investment principal individually even before the agreement in this case was reached,” to the effect that the Plaintiff was in a diplomatic relation with the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, and thereby, the Plaintiff invested in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. working for Defendant B.

Therefore, the defendants' arguments are not accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is concluded.