2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Judgment

According to the statement of No. 13, witness I and the purport of the whole testimony and argument of witness I, the fact that the plaintiff's attached to the plaintiff for the agreement on June 19, 2014, during which the principal lawsuit of this case was pending, the court, the defendant, and I prepared the draft of the written withdrawal agreement (Evidence No. 7-1) by I, and the defendant remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the account under the J's name on June 26, 2014 is recognized.

However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the claimJ, the defendant, and I who did not reach an agreement on the terms and conditions of the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case between J and the defendant, and that they did not affix the J seal to the above written agreement of the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the agreement on the withdrawal of the lawsuit in this case as alleged by the defendant, and there

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

Basic Facts

On December 22, 2009, the Defendant entered into the entrustment management contract (hereinafter “instant branch entry contract”) with respect to the instant truck (hereinafter “instant truck”) under which the Defendant, a borrower, entrusted with his own operation and management right from D and paid the fixed amount of commission monthly to D while operating and managing the instant truck (hereinafter “instant branch entry contract”). On December 22, 2009, the Defendant completed the transfer of ownership under the name of D with respect to the instant truck.

E concluded a lease agreement on the instant truck with the Defendant, and operated the instant truck from August 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010.

(ju) D Concerning F and the instant truck on October 1, 2010.