1. The defendant shall pay 23,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from May 25, 2010 to the day of complete payment.

1. In light of the purport of the entire pleading as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 (the loan certificate, the defendant does not dispute the establishment of the authenticity of the loan certificate, and the purport that the loan certificate was due to the declaration of intent by duress as seen in Paragraph 2; hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case"), the defendant can be acknowledged as having agreed on May 24, 2010 to pay the plaintiff 30 million won at interest rate of 24% per annum and up to December 24, 2010. The fact that the plaintiff received payment from the defendant and appropriated the principal amount of KRW 7,000,000 out of the above contract amount to the plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff again returned the amount of KRW 7,00,000 to the defendant in cash, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had the obligation to pay interest rate of KRW 230 million and delay damages from May 25, 2010.

(A) The loan certificate of this case contains the following: (a) the loan certificate of this case contains the following: (b) while the plaintiff claims for the "agreement amount", the defendant's expression of intent to pay 30 million won to the plaintiff by December 24, 2010 through the loan certificate of this case is recognized as the defendant's expression of intent to pay 30 million won to the plaintiff by December 24, 2010.

A. As to the first argument, in the concerns that the Defendant suspected of having been involved in the breach of trust case operated by the Plaintiff and who is actually in the position, forced the Plaintiff to contact the house without preparing the instant loan certificate under the name of recovery from damage, and had the Plaintiff prepare the instant loan certificate despite the fact that it was not related to the Defendant, and thus, the instant loan certificate is revoked as a declaration of intent by coercion. However, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan certificate is revoked as a declaration of intent by coercion.