1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from October 24, 2014 to May 28, 2015.

1. The plaintiff, on April 6, 2005, determined on the cause of the claim, shall be KRW 5 million to the defendant, and the same year.

6. 14.10 million won, and the same year.

6.16.16.10 million won, and the same year.

6. 27.10 million won, and the same year.

6. A loan of KRW 50 million in total, which is KRW 10 million on August 28, 200, and KRW 50 million on October 5 of the same year.

(A) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 50 million and damages for delay, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that he paid KRW 10 million out of the above loans to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2005 and October 8, 2005 of the same year, and that he paid KRW 5 million among the above loans, according to the purport of the statement in subparagraph 1 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on July 13, 2010.

나. 나머지 대여금 4,000만 원에 대하여 1 취소 항변 피고는 "원고로부터 4,000만 원을 빌리지 않았는데 원고가 차용증을 작성하라고 윽박지르고 죽일 듯이 험악한 행동을 보이므로 어쩔 수 없이 피고가 원고로부터 2005. 6. 14. 1,000만 원, 같은 해

6.16.16.10 million won, and the same year.

6. 27.10 million won, and the same year.

6. 28. 28. 10 million won was drawn up with a loan certificate (A. 1-2, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

Therefore, the declaration of intention that the defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the plaintiff is made by coercion, and such declaration of intention is revoked by the delivery of a duplicate of the reply in this case.

“Written argument”

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff coercions the defendant, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) Recognizing the exemption defense A), Plaintiff C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under the Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2013Kadan4256, the building name of the building was also filed by the Defendant, and the Defendant filed a claim against D for restitution of unjust enrichment under the 2013Kadan908 as a counterclaim.

In the above case, on February 13, 2014, "the defendant will display D cement brick, cement brick, sand position plate to D in the north-gu E in the port of port.