1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff invested a considerable amount of money in the said company by means of remitting money to the Defendant’s account on April 7, 2009, upon the Defendant’s solicitation of investment, who had worked as a business director of C, as a business director of the said company.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant for fraud around November 201, as the Plaintiff did not receive the said investment amount from the said company and the Defendant.

While the Defendant was investigating the instant case on June 26, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay 13 million won to the Plaintiff by July 10, 2012 when requesting the withdrawal of the complaint (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and drafted a payment note stating the said content (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant payment note”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from July 11, 2012, the day following the agreed payment date, to July 17, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 13 million won per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of intention liability, the Defendant only entered into the instant agreement with the purport that if the Defendant’s business is well-grounded, the Plaintiff would return the investment amount on behalf of the Plaintiff Company C on his behalf. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is deemed unfair. The Plaintiff’s claim is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s obligation under the instant agreement merely as an intentional obligation, and there is no other evidence. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation of intention by coercion is without merit.