1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of this Court regarding this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the part of “2. Fact finding” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “the establishment registration of each and the establishment registration of each and the instant real estate completed was cancelled on March 18, 2014” to “the establishment registration of each and the instant real estate was cancelled on March 16, 201,” and therefore, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's assertion ① Since the settlement of this case was conducted in the state of his/her capacity, the settlement of this case in this case is invalid as a juristic act by a person without mental capacity, or an act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code or an unfair act under Article 104 of the Civil Code

In addition, No. 17, stating the contents of the instant settlement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) will suspend the Defendant’s repayment period to the Plaintiff.

“A document which is forged by means of entering the details of the instant settlement after obtaining the Plaintiff’s name in blank.”

Therefore, the settlement of this case is invalid.

② Even if the settlement of this case is not null and void, the settlement of this case was forced by the defendant and C, and even if not, the agreement of this case is a document known to the plaintiff in writing to postpone the period of repayment, which constitutes an error in indication.

Accordingly, the plaintiff shall revoke the settlement of this case, which is the declaration of intention under the agreement of this case, by the service of the preparatory documents dated March 25, 2016.

③ Even if each of the above arguments is not acknowledged, the settlement of this case constitutes a promise for payment in kind, and the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant as indicated in the Plaintiff’s calculation sheet, and repaid the money, and the amount of outstanding principal and interest as of March 17, 2014 was KRW 9,786,065. At the time of the settlement of this case, the market price of the real estate was KRW 440 million, and thus, the Plaintiff’s loan and interest at the time of the settlement of this case was added to the sum at issue.