1. The Defendants: (a) from August 1, 2016 to June 8, 2017, Defendant C with respect to each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 34,00,000 and its amount.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On July 14, 2015, Defendant C borrowed KRW 34,000,00 from the Plaintiffs on June 27, 2015, and prepared and delivered a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating that the repayment would be delayed by July 31, 2016; Defendant D’s debt owed to the Plaintiffs under the loan certificate of this case; the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the debt owed to the Plaintiffs; the fact that the Defendants did not pay the principal and interest pursuant to the loan certificate of this case to the Plaintiffs does not conflict between the parties; or that it can be recognized by taking into account the descriptions of Party C and the entire purport of oral arguments.

According to the above facts, Defendant C is a principal debtor, and Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiffs a loan of KRW 34,000,000 on the loan certificate of this case and the following day after the due date for payment. From August 1, 2016, Defendant C is the delivery date of the complaint of this case until June 8, 2017, and Defendant D is the duty to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum per annum from November 1, 2017, the delivery date of the complaint of this case until the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

B. As to the determination of the Defendant C’s assertion, as the sale agency business of the building in Incheon Southern-ju, which was being promoted, was sealed to the infertility, Defendant C prepared and ordered the instant loan certificate by force and intimidation of the Plaintiffs on the wind arising from the dispute between the Plaintiffs and interested parties. Thus, Defendant C asserts that the said Defendant’s expression of intent in the instant loan certificate should be revoked by coercion.

However, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall enter the disposal document in the form of a disposal document, unless there is clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny its contents.