2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were dead from January 2013 to August 2016.

Since then, the defendant came to death with the plaintiff's friendship C.

B. On November 4, 2016, the Busan District Prosecutors' Office filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charges of defamation, aiding and abetting suicide, assaulting C, intrusion upon residence, and aiding and abetting suicide. On the other hand, on November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff revoked the Defendant's defamation and assaulting C, and subsequently, the Plaintiff was not subject to prosecution on the grounds that there is no authority to institute a prosecution, and on the other hand, C's intrusion upon residence and aiding and abetting suicide.

【Judgment on the claim for an agreed amount as to the cause of claim as to Gap’s evidence No. 11 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and all pleadings, is primarily asserted that the plaintiff has an obligation to pay the above money, since the defendant agreed to return KRW 15,00,000 out of the expenses paid by the plaintiff during the period of criminal agreement to the plaintiff during which he/she returns to the defendant during the period of his/her return to the defendant.

The following facts are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with the Defendant; (b) the Plaintiff revoked the complaint; and (c) there was a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have the right to institute a public prosecution on the Defendant’s defamation; and (d) the assault of

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment of KRW 15 million in the course of revoking a criminal complaint by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 19, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff, before the revocation of the criminal complaint, provided that the Defendant promised to send text messages that the Defendant would pay KRW 15 million to the content certificate (Evidence A No. 8), but such text messages did not have been submitted. Rather, the Plaintiff, before the revocation of the criminal complaint, provided that “A private match B shall be repaid” to C.

(k)bed;