1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant would pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff’s fraud C, and the notary public, as the same law office No. 1996, issued a promissory note No. 4756 with the Defendant as the obligor, and C received KRW 9 million from D.

Then, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C’s third party agreement, acquired the claim against the Defendant by transfer, and received reimbursement of KRW 3 million from the Defendant around October 10, 2007.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay the balance of 13 million won (=25 million won - 9 million won - 3 million won) and damages for delay.

B. Around October 2007, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff would no longer file a claim against the Defendant while paying KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would no longer file a claim against the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. In a case where there is an agreement not to file a lawsuit even if there is a dispute over a specific right or legal relationship, the lawsuit in violation of this agreement is unlawful as it is against the principle of trust and good faith under Article 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared a written statement to the effect that "No. 3 million won was paid from the defendant on October 10, 2007, and the plaintiff should not be recognized as a promissory note." This means that "No. 3,000,000 B sent in cash. . 10 October 27."

According to this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 3 million from the Defendant on October 10, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 3 million to the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate its claim against the Defendant and not to make a claim based on a notarial deed or promissory note in the future, and that the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 3 million includes an agreement on the instigation of a lawsuit.

Therefore, this case, which was brought in violation of the above sub-committee agreement.