1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The parties' assertion

A. From March 25, 2009 to March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant used KRW 42,109,961, out of the price of goods sold and collected by the Plaintiff as a business employee at the Plaintiff’s B’s business office, for personal use without paying to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 42,109,961 in four installments and KRW 42,109,961 in four installments on March 24, 2015.

“The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 42,109,961 and the delay damages for the agreed amount of KRW 42,109,961, as the written statement of performance was written in writing.

B. The defendant's defense is that the defendant prepared a written statement of performance and a written statement of performance at the request of the plaintiff's claims team employees to avoid dismissal, on the ground that there is an outstanding amount which is the difference between the actual sales amount and the sales amount on the account book by making an irregular sale in order to achieve the sales target set by the plaintiff. The above agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act because the plaintiff knew or could have known

In addition, the above letter of performance and the person who was appointed by the defendant was prepared in an imminent situation where the defendant would be dismissed. Since there is a remarkable imbalance between payment and consideration, it is invalid because it constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to prepare a certificate of performance and a memorandum of payment, and made up a threat of dismissal to the defendant. In accordance with Article 110(1) of the Civil Act, the above declaration of intention is revoked on the ground of coercion.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture, processing, and sale of fruit and ice cream, and the Defendant works for the Plaintiff’s B’s business from March 25, 2009 to March 25, 2015 as a business employee, and the ice cream produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant goods”).