1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant agreed with the Defendant to pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant who suffered damage due to the Nonparty’s fraudulent act (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Defendant decided to withdraw the complaint against C. Since the Defendant revoked the withdrawal of the complaint in the trial process, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the above amount to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. As long as a disposal document is deemed to be authentic in its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, 19783 Decided February 15, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, Feb. 15, 2017). Inasmuch as the occurrence or extinguishment of a juristic act depends on the nature of an uncertain fact in the future, the condition constitutes the whole content of the expression of intent constituting the said juristic act. As such, the condition requires the expression of the condition, namely, the intent to attach the condition in accordance with the general principle of declaration of intent, and the expression of the condition requires the expression of intent, and even if the condition is expressed outside, it

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da10797 delivered on May 13, 2003).

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, and Eul evidence No. 1, the non-party C was subject to criminal trials on or around 2016 (hereinafter "the above appellate court") by violating the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and by fraud during the operation of the Duringdo-gun Dri, Jeonnam-do-gun (hereinafter "Gwanju District Court 2016No288, hereinafter "the above appellate court"), and (2) on September 2016, the plaintiff was delegated by Eul, etc. as an investor to C, and around December 15, 2016, between C and the plaintiff from C.