1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay 4,000,000 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from December 9, 2015.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 9, 2015 to the day of full payment, on September 1, 2015, for the following reasons: (a) the purport that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff by September 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

As to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff made the certificate of loan in this case by forcing the plaintiff to make a threat or assault against the defendant's workplace and forced the defendant to make a preparation. Thus, although there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant made the certificate of loan in this case by coercion, it can be acknowledged that the defendant sent a text message to the plaintiff on December 8, 2015 that the defendant would pay the amount of KRW 4 million to the plaintiff on December 8, 2015, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

2. Determination on the cause of the counterclaim

A. Defendant’s assertion from June 2015 to around August 2015, the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that the Plaintiff’s age was high. From around the end of August 2015, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff at the Hague. From that time, the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff to find out the Defendant’s workplace and prepare a loan certificate on September 1, 2015. ② In an investigative agency’s complaint or petition for adjudication by fraud, assault, or violation of Personal Information Protection Act, etc.; ③ in a case where the Defendant filed a damages suit against the Defendant with the Seoul Northern District Court 2016Gadan674, and ④ in a case where the Defendant’s workplace was sought and paid back several times, the Defendant made a false representation to the Plaintiff and his employees; and ④ in a case where the Defendant was forced to find out the Defendant’s workplace and make a false representation.