1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is entitled to KRW 52,391,601 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

(b) a construction project to prevent land erosion, but the objective of the project is not achieved and the cable’s land erosion continues to exist;

Accordingly, on June 30, 2014, the defendant raised a civil petition to the National Land Management Office on the above cable's land erosion, etc., and the National Land Management Office began to urge the plaintiff to remove the above cable.

E. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the following agreements (hereinafter “instant agreement”) on July 14, 2014.

B The draft of the agreement of this case originally A was written by the defendant, and the draft was written only by 1 to 10 of the above agreed matters.

However, in the process of agreement, the existing provisions are in its original form and an agreement in which paragraph 11 and paragraph 1 are added at the request of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, the defendant, and the observer affixed their seals on the agreement.

After that, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant on July 17, 2014 in accordance with paragraph * of the instant agreement.

F. After the formation of the instant agreement, the Defendant expressed to the Plaintiff on July 28, 2014 through the content certification (Evidence No. 6) of the Plaintiff, on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiff was drafted irrespective of the Defendant’s intent; (b) the Plaintiff’s additional provision of Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff was written in addition to the Plaintiff’s intent; (c) the Plaintiff’s power of delegation or certificate of personal seal impression was not attached to the agreement; and (c) the instant agreement is null and void; (d) the Plaintiff’s construction cost was not known as the cause of damage compensation; and (e) the Plaintiff’s intent to return KRW 50 million received by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

G. As to the above content certification, the Defendant’s content certification (Evidence No. (Evidence No. (Evidence No. (Evidence No. (1)) does not mean that the instant agreement was made smoothly with the consent of the parties, but does not include the above KRW 50 million, which includes the Defendant’s mental damage and seven construction works as required by the Defendant.