1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The grounds alleged in the trial of the court of first instance are not significantly different from those alleged in the court of first instance while the plaintiff appealed from the court of first instance, and there is no additional evidence submitted in the trial of the court of first instance.

Furthermore, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is recognized as legitimate even if all the evidence presented by the date of the closing of the arguments in the trial.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, and the judgment on the assertion added or emphasized by the plaintiff in the trial is added, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as set forth below. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the second instance judgment of the first instance, the term “18:40” in the second instance judgment of the first instance shall be amended to “18:39” and the other “the other” in the 19th instance judgment shall be amended to “the following”. 2. Additional determination

A. The part on the claim of the Plaintiff’s assertion (main claim) does not exist between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and according to the content of the instant agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, only the Defendant has the obligation to return the amount to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have the right to defense of simultaneous performance against the Plaintiff. The instant agreement cannot be deemed to have been acknowledged as having the right to defense of simultaneous performance against the Plaintiff. If the obligation borne by each party is related to a quid pro quo based on the concept of fairness and the principle of good faith when the obligation owed by each party is related to a quid pro quo, one of the parties can refuse the other party’s performance, without either performing the other party’s obligation or providing the other party’s obligation. In light of the purport of this system, even if each obligation owed by the parties is not inherent in the bilateral contract, the specific contractual relationship bears the burden of each party.