1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. If there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant's agreement to pay to the plaintiff 150 million won borrowed under the pretext of operation of the coffee house on January 29, 2015, and "the agreement to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff by February 25, 2015" is "the agreement to deliver to the plaintiff a claim for the return of the lease deposit with respect to the amount of KRW 20 million borrowed under the name of the lease deposit in Ulsan-gun-gun, Ulsan-gun, 101 and 402, and "the agreement to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff".

- The fact that each document was prepared is recognized.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant borrowed a total of KRW 170 million from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to have borrowed a total of KRW 170 million from the plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have borrowed a total of KRW 170 million from the plaintiff as the loan amount of KRW 150 million = KRW 20 million in the amount of KRW 150 million,

shall be liable to pay such amount.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant received the above KRW 170 million from the plaintiff in order to maintain internal relations with the plaintiff. The defendant asserted that he/she prepared each of the instant agreements due to coercion by the plaintiff. However, although each of the statements in the evidence in subparagraphs 3 through 6 of this paragraph received KRW 170 million from the plaintiff, the defendant was forced to receive KRW 170 million from the plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff forced to prepare each of the instant agreements, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff renounced the claim for the loan of this case.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s waiver of the claim against the Defendant by destroying each of the instant agreements, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is with merit. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

① The Plaintiff is the Defendant.