Among them, the part against the Defendant regarding the loan claim shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be the Incheon District Court.

1. Regarding the defendant's defense against the defendant that the plaintiff's claim for the loan of this case was in violation of the non-litigation agreement and that the claim was already renounced or exempted, the court below rejected the validity of the agreement of this case, and partly accepted the plaintiff's claim for the loan of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the loan of this case cannot be deemed to be an agreement to exclude the defendant's civil liability, on the following grounds that the plaintiff's claim for the loan of this case cannot be deemed to be an agreement to exclude the agreement under the agreement of this case from the defendant's civil liability.

In other words, (1) although the instant agreement states that “an agreement was reached in full by completing the repayment of the obligation to the claim,” it seems that the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement as requested by the Defendant in fact in that the obligation has not been fully repaid.

(2) The Plaintiff became aware of the circumstances in which the full amount was not repaid despite the preparation of the written agreement in the instant criminal case court.

(3) In the letter that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff prior to the formation of the written agreement, the Defendant expressed his intention to transfer the claim of KRW 28 million and agreed to resolve the entire claim even after the release.

(4) 13 million won received by the Plaintiff as an agreed amount is not less than 1/4 on the basis of the principal amount of KRW 55 million, and does not exceed 1/3 even on the basis of the remaining amount.

(5) Since the Defendant was under the custody of the court of appeal and the agreement with the Plaintiff was interrupted, it seems that the agreement was the principal purpose of criminal law.

2...