1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 87,000,000,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff on March 4, 2005 to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. The plaintiff is obligated to pay 87,00,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant, as if the plaintiff did not prepare the above letter and loan certificate, made the above letter and loan certificate to the plaintiff by threatening the defendant as if he would inflict harm on his body, and made them by coercion in the strong atmosphere, and thus, the above letter and loan certificate are invalid. However, the data submitted by the defendant are insufficient to recognize that the defendant prepared the above letter and loan certificate by the plaintiff's coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. Since the defendant defenses that the claim based on the above letter and the loan certificate has expired by prescription, the fact that the due date for payment based on the above letter, the above letter, and the loan certificate was July 4, 2005 is the same as seen earlier, and the fact that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on January 13, 2016, which was ten years after the lapse of the above 10 years from the plaintiff, is apparent in the record. Thus, the claim based on the above letter and the loan certificate had already expired by prescription before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

As such, the defendant's above defense is reasonable.

On August 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Plaintiff with an investigative agency as an unlawful uttering of private documents, and acknowledged the existence of the obligation based on the above letter and the loan certificate at the time, and approved the obligation, and thus the statute of limitations has been interrupted. However, the Plaintiff re-claimed to the effect that the statute of limitations has been interrupted