1. The Defendant’s KRW 81,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2014 to September 9, 2015.

1. 청구원인에 관한 판단 피고는 2011. 1.경부터 2012. 7.경까지 원고로부터 떡볶이 등의 식품을 납품받아 그 대금 중 57,671,260원을 지급하지 못한 사실, 원고가 피고를 위하여 렌트한 자동차의 렌트비용을 피고가 지급하지 아니하여 피고는 원고에게 2014. 1. 9, 같은 해

2. 6. The Defendant prepared and delivered a letter of commitment or a letter of commitment recognizing his/her responsibility for performance, etc.; the Defendant, on July 5, 2014, shall reimburse the Plaintiff with a total of KRW 85 million and the cost of goods and sirens; however, on July 31, 2014, the Defendant prepared and delivered a letter of commitment to make installment payments of KRW 30 million and KRW 55 million until September 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “statement of performance of this case”) to the Plaintiff, may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account each of the descriptions in subparagraphs A through 6 (including the serial number) and the overall purport of the pleadings.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 81 million after deducting the amount of KRW 4 million paid to the Plaintiff from the amount of KRW 85 million agreed upon in the instant performance memorandum, and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 1, 2014 to September 9, 2015, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant from October 1, 2014, which is the day following the due date stipulated in the performance memorandum of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the invalidity of the written rejection of performance of this case by duress, the defendant made the written rejection of performance of this case to be prepared by the plaintiff's duress, so the defendant's defense is invalid, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant'

B. Since the subject to the burden of payment of siren costs and the Defendant’s wage deduction also worked as the actual employee of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff provided a siren to the Defendant free of charge, and at least from January 2012 to September 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.