A. A. Around September 2006, the Plaintiff’s Branch C was dismissed from running an illegal casino and detained.

The defendant's Dong-in D received KRW 160 million from the plaintiff under the pretext that it is against the police, the prosecutor's office, and the high-ranking department of the court for the release of C.

D The amount of KRW 60 million among them shall be used at C’s attorney-at-law’s expense, and one hundred million among them shall be written for other purposes.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against D as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and D was detained, and became subject to criminal trials with Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2007Ra3118.

C. In order to agree with the Plaintiff on January 8, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on January 8, 2009, entered into a loan certificate (Evidence No. 2-1) and money loan agreement (Evidence No. 2-2); (b) on January 8, 2009, the Defendant took charge of KRW 300,000 ( KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). 【Non-contentious facts” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that although the costs of C related to the case and loans of KRW 100 million were considered in the calculation of the amount of criminal agreement, since the Criminal Agreement is separate, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 300 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant does not agree to return KRW 100 million that D received from the plaintiff in connection with C case and used at will from the plaintiff, and it does not agree to pay KRW 300 million separate from this, and it is the pretext of soliciting the case handled by the public official among KRW 300 million that the defendant decided to return.