1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is entitled to KRW 6 million with respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and to the date of full payment with respect thereto from September 4, 2014.

1. The Plaintiff, while attending a university in Gwangju around 2011, was liable for a large amount of debt, entered in the facts [based grounds for recognition] without any dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff made each of the following transactions with the Defendant: (a) around that time, in order to resolve the said debt, he/she borrowed money from the Defendant or had the Plaintiff repay the said debt on behalf of the Plaintiff; (b) during that process, the Defendant made up the loan certificate on March 14, 2012 (5.2 million won, Gap 3-1), and the loan certificate on September 16, 2012 (5.4 million won, and Gap 3-2) respectively.

Around January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff’s parent C and D repaid to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff the loan certificate as of March 14, 2012 and the obligation on the loan certificate as of September 16, 2012.

In other words, the Plaintiff again prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 6 million from the Defendant on January 8, 2014, and paid KRW 4 million until March 16, 2014, and KRW 2 million until April 8, 2014,” with the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 6 million.” However, on April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff forced the Defendant to prepare the instant loan certificate and each of the above loan certificates, and took money or inflicted injury on several occasions.”

‘A' filed a complaint against the Defendant on suspicion, and on April 3, 2014, the principal suit of this case was filed.

The prosecutor of the Office of the World District Prosecutors' Office in Gwangju has made a non-prosecution disposition regarding the above accusation case, and the prosecutor's appeal against the above disposition by the plaintiff was also dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on January 3, 2013, the Plaintiff’s parent’s obligation owed to the Defendant was extinguished by the Plaintiff’s subrogation; (b) under absolute coercion, the instant loan certificate was null and void, or the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent was made by duress; and (c) sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation based on the instant loan certificate.

Defendant: The Plaintiff settled the transaction relation with the Defendant as KRW 6 million and prepared the loan certificate of this case, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 6 million and delay damages to the Defendant.

3. However, the defendant.