A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion embezzled KRW 145,735,898 in total over 100 times from January 3, 2007 to October 5, 2015, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the said embezzlement amount of KRW 145,735,898 as compensation for damages incurred by the tort, as well as delay damages incurred therefrom, by arbitrarily using the money owned by the Plaintiff while serving as accounting at the “D” manufacturer located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the Plaintiff; or (b) using the bill of commitment and the index at will from January 3, 2007 to October 5, 2015.

B. On December 2015, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking damages equivalent to the above embezzlement amount against the Defendant in violation of the agreement on the institution of the instant lawsuit, even though the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff and not to re-inform the Plaintiff in any case thereafter, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. If the parties to a lawsuit agree not to file a lawsuit even if there is a dispute over a specific right or legal relationship (hereinafter “non-committee agreement”), the lawsuit filed in violation of the agreement has no interest in the protection of rights. However, the non-committee agreement is valid as it generates the effect of a serious litigation law, such as waiver of the right to a trial guaranteed under the Constitution to the parties to the lawsuit, which can be anticipated at the time of the agreement, and if there is any disagreement on the validity or scope thereof, it shall be determined after a reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intent.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). (B)

According to the evidence Nos. 7, 7, and 3, the Defendant, before filing the instant lawsuit, shall be the Plaintiff on January 20, 2016.