1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,000,000 Won in Vietnam and from August 3, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the cause of the instant claim, it is recognized that the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff on April 4, 2017 a loan certificate stating that “the Plaintiff shall borrow KRW 20 million and KRW 2 billion in Vietnam, but shall complete payment by April 4, 2018” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 3, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case, to the day of the delivery of the complaint of this case.

2. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment against this, on December 2016, 2016, the Defendant respondeded to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment that “the Plaintiff is likely to engage in a winding business to the Defendant, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to suspend the red ginseng sales business that had been operated before that time, but the Plaintiff refused to suspend its red ginseng sales business. However, the Defendant respondeded to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment that the Defendant would help the Defendant operate his winding and red ginseng business

Although the loss incurred by the Defendant in the course of performing his business was 3,636,481,00 US$181,00 in Vietnam (Korean Won approximately 181,824,050), the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is less than KRW 120,000,000 in labor cost, and as such, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay to the Defendant the amount equivalent to KRW 11,20,000 in labor cost.

In addition, the loan certificate of this case is prepared in accordance with the plaintiff's coercion in the above process.

It argues that “the” is “the case.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the loan certificate of this case was made by the plaintiff's duress, and there is no other evidence to prove that it was made by the plaintiff's duress, and the statement in subparagraph 1 alone does not obstruct the above judgment as to the cause of the claim of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion is difficult

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning and it is so decided as per Disposition.