1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 54,400,00, and KRW 10,000,000 to Plaintiff B, the Defendant began on November 25, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 6, 2007, the defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff A a letter stating that "the defendant paid KRW 70 million from the plaintiff A on September 20, 2007, the remaining KRW 44.4 million after deducting KRW 25.6 million" (hereinafter "each letter of this case").

Plaintiff

A paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant on September 20, 2007.

B. The Defendant, the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff B, November 14, 2007, and November 30, 2007, respectively, lent KRW 10 million without interest or due date.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff A the total amount of KRW 54.4 million (i.e., KRW 10 million), the loan amount of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from November 25, 2014 to the date of complete payment, from November 25, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that the instant letter was made up of extreme coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. 2) In addition, if the Defendant sells D Apartment Nos. 1307 and 503 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) that the Plaintiffs owned by the Defendant, he would purchase the purchase price to complete the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant by purchasing Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment Nos. 103 and 102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and concluding the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant, and purchased the instant apartment after being delegated by the Defendant with the authority to sell the instant apartment, but the Defendant did not transfer the ownership of the instant E apartment to the Defendant, and instead, purchased the instant apartment under the pretext of the interest on the loan received from the Defendant as security.