1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff is a person who engages in food supply business with the trade name of “E,” and entered into a contract with the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial to continuously supply waste bags, which is operated by the Co-Defendant B, and paid KRW 150 million with the transaction deposit.

B. On September 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the aforementioned B agreed to terminate the food supply transaction, and the Defendant B settled that the balance of the purchase and sale of goods, which had not been paid until that time, was the cause of 66 million won. During that process, the Plaintiff and the aforementioned B made a written statement of the purchase and sale of goods, such as the written statement in the attached Form, that the balance of the purchase and sale of goods, would be repaid until September 30, 2016, and the transaction deposit would be repaid until October 31, 2016, and the Defendants signed as the guarantor.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant notes”) C.

Until December 2016, Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial paid to the Plaintiff KRW 24 million out of the total sum of 66 million and the transaction deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. In the summary of the defendants' assertion of the main defense of this case, Paragraph 6 of the title of this case provides for an agreement to file a lawsuit. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful since there is no benefit to protect the rights and it is contrary to the principle of good faith.

B. 1) Determination 1) In the case where there is any disagreement on the validity or scope of the agreement, the agreement to bring about a serious legal effect, such as the waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution, is valid as to the circumstances that may be anticipated at the time of the agreement, and where 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 2017Da217151, Aug. 14, 2019). According to the evidence No. 1, according to paragraph (6) of each of the instant cases, the “this confirmation document” is recognized by mutual agreement and is to be repaid on the date of promise.