1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is serving as a middle school teacher as a type D in which the Plaintiff actually operated a company selling sports products in the trade name C.

B. The Plaintiff loaned money from November 2014 to July 2015 to D with a fund for operation of C, but the Plaintiff did not receive a refund from D, and D was detained upon the complaint from other creditors than the Plaintiff.

C. On November 2015, C was closed, and its employees continued to engage in business in the trade name called E.

On December 2015, the defendant prepared and ordered the plaintiff at the E office a letter of performance of the obligation as shown in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant letter”) to the plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff received KRW 800,000 from E on March 2, 2016, and KRW 800,000 from April 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 4, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant respective text, the Defendant paid KRW 800,000 to the Plaintiff around March 2016, and paid KRW 800,000 to the Plaintiff around April 2016, the Plaintiff should pay the remainder of KRW 118,40,00,00, excluding that.

B. It is true that the Defendant prepared the instant letter to the Plaintiff.

However, at the time of the delivery of each of the instant statements from the Defendant, the Plaintiff said to the effect that the Defendant would not use them legally. This constitutes an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the instant lawsuit should be dismissed as it is unnecessary to protect the rights.

However, even if not so, the defendant delivered the letter of this case from the G operating with D to allow the plaintiff to receive the payment note, and the defendant did not have any intent to pay to the defendant. Since all of the plaintiffs are aware of this fact, the declaration of intention in this case is a false expression of intention or a collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant.