1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,160,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from January 8, 2012 to November 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant, on January 7, 2011, may recognize that on January 7, 2011, the defendant: (a) on the plaintiff, a receiver C receives KRW 100,000,000 from the guidance money on January 7, 201; (b) he/she shall pay the guidance money by January 7, 201; and (c) if not, on the other hand, he/she shall be liable as a joint guarantor (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant statements"); and (d) C may recognize the fact that it has not paid KRW 20,160,000 out of the guidance money, and there is no counter-proof.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 20,160,000 as a joint guarantor of C, and 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 8, 2012 to November 25, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from January 8, 2012, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. At the time of the preparation of each of the instant forms, the Defendant forced the Defendant to flick the Plaintiff, and the Defendant prepared each of the instant forms without the intent to bear the obligation. As such, each of the instant forms defense to the effect that it should be revoked as a declaration of intent by coercion, or that it is null and void as a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of intention by coercion.

Only on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2-2 and 3-2 and the evidence Nos. 2-3, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant letters was prepared by coercion or by conspiracy, false declaration, or false declaration of intention, or that the Plaintiff was made by a false declaration of intention, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant’s defense of this part is without merit.

B. The defendant returned the letter of this case to the non-party D, who is the defendant's mother, and the defendant's obligation under the letter of this case to the plaintiff.