2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff, upon receiving KRW 7 million from the defendant, agreed to leave the house owned by the defendant to the lessee of the house owned by the defendant (Innju City C), the plaintiff promised not to bear civil and criminal liability against the defendant if the plaintiff fails to pay the above money to the lessee and return it to the defendant. The plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit of this case raised against the fulfillment of the condition of the non-committee agreement because the condition of the non-committee agreement was not fulfilled because it did not pay or return it to the lessee, has no interest in protecting the rights.

B. According to the evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered each letter dated July 14, 2014 (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) to the effect that the Defendant would return 7 million won in advance from the said housing lessee on behalf of the Plaintiff and withdraw the lessee, and that if the Plaintiff did not pay the money, the Plaintiff would have given up the money given and received between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and would not be held liable for civil and criminal liability against the Defendant.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 6 and 8, namely, the defendant, at the time of the preparation of the statement of this case, had D residing in his own house and maintained internal relations, and the plaintiff is the tenant who has paid seven million won in advance. The plaintiff prepared the statement of this case with the knowledge that it would be possible to present the tenant if he believed the defendant's horse and paid seven million won in advance. In light of the fact that the plaintiff, who was aware of the fact later, denies the validity of the above agreement in this lawsuit, the above agreement constitutes an expression of intent by fraud, and it is sufficient to deem that the plaintiff revoked it.

On the other hand, in light of the provisions of Article 137 of the Civil Code, there is a ground for invalidation in a part of a legal act.