1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this Court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Therefore, it is cited including summary language pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake on the premise of a settlement agreement, the Defendant’s assertion 1) is the amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. ① The amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 185.4 million, ① KRW 46.877 million after deducting the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 138.5.3 million deposited to the Defendant, ② the Plaintiff out of KRW 20 million equivalent to the purchase cost of household appliances, ② the amount of KRW 10 million after deducting the value of household appliances, ③ KRW 30 million, ④ KRW 15 million, ④ KRW 30 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 35 million, and KRW 1870,000,000 in total, without calculating the monetary relationship with the Plaintiff. The Defendant drafted the loan certificate of this case with the purport that the Defendant would pay KRW 150 million by mistake without calculating the monetary relationship with the Plaintiff.

Since the defendant paid KRW 73 million to the plaintiff, the defendant still remains about KRW 30 million (=1.87 million - KRW 73 million) to be paid to the plaintiff.

B) In addition, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff via D, and KRW 29.72 million paid to the Plaintiff with the purchase price of apartment units in the Plaintiff’s name ( KRW 2,472 million paid to the Plaintiff with the contract deposit), but it stated that there was no reason for the Defendant to erroneously and immediately memory the Plaintiff, and to pay money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff received only the above KRW 70 million from the apartment unit living together with the Plaintiff.