On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and was handed over from the Defendant one promissory note with the same amount as the security for the loan, and the DMW 520D vehicles owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a written agreement with the Plaintiff on August 23, 2013, stating that “the instant vehicle-related issues shall be dealt with under the agreement between E and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall not be held liable for civil or criminal liability; (b) so, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner; (c) however, the said agreement is merely about the theft of the instant vehicle, and cannot be deemed to be related to the loan, which is the cause of the instant claim; and therefore, (d) the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, on October 6, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on October 6, 2015, and did not file any objection or civil or criminal lawsuit due to the instant lawsuit.

“The instant lawsuit is withdrawn in accordance with the written agreement (No. 3). However, it is difficult to view that the written agreement is related to the execution of the instant lawsuit by the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTTT 20820, and it is difficult to view that it is related to the instant lawsuit. Thus, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

(b) defenses;