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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment under paragraph (2) to the Defendants’ assertion, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B received KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff as investment money, not from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s proof of borrowing (Evidence A (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) by intimidation.

(1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants signed and sealed the evidence No. 1 and the Defendant B signed and sealed the evidence No. 1 on the ground that there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant B signed and sealed the evidence No. 1 due to the Plaintiff’s intimidation, as long as the establishment of the document is recognized to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, Feb. 15, 2017).

However, at the trial of the court, the above Defendants recognized the fact that they had not signed the loan certificate of this case as a guarantor upon the Plaintiff’s request (the preparatory document dated December 13, 2016). Accordingly, this part of the above Defendants’ assertion is with merit.