1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On June 21, 2013, D, the father of the Plaintiff, borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant, and on January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant in order to repay part of D’s above loan obligations on behalf of the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's repayment of D's debt on behalf of the defendant constitutes a cause of declaration of intention by the defendant's intimidation, and that the defendant shall return the above KRW 40 million to the plaintiff.

B. In order to constitute a declaration of harm by coercion of judgment, the other party should have made a fear and expression of harm due to the illegal knowing of the harm. Here, in order to constitute an unlawful act of coercion of which harm and injury was made, it should be deemed that the benefits pursued by the notice of harm and injury are not justifiable in light of the transactional concept and overall circumstances at the time of the act of coercion, the contents of harm and injury known to the other party as a means of coercion are in violation of legal order, or that the notice of harm and injury is inappropriate as a means to achieve the profit pursued

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da64049, Mar. 23, 2000). All evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s repayment of part of the debt to the Defendant instead of his father was caused by the Defendant’s coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.