1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision or addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff made in the court of first instance pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the fourth instance judgment, the first instance court revoked the judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 24, 2018, on the grounds that “the criminal conciliation pursuant to the instant agreement cannot be deemed to have been constituted,” and the said appellate judgment became final and conclusive as it was dismissed due to the Plaintiff’s filing of an appeal, even though it was dismissed due to the lower court’s rejection of deliberation.”

A. 11 additional evidence No. 11 on the grounds of recognition No. 7 of the first instance judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion C submitted to the court a written confirmation that has no effect to the court and received a ruling of recommending a compromise in the court to waive the plaintiff's 39 million won stated in the written confirmation. The plaintiff deceptioned C to pay 39 million won, and the plaintiff who believed it lost the right to file a lawsuit against the loan claim equivalent to the above amount because C did not raise an objection to the decision of recommending a compromise in this case.

The claim for damages and the claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from the tort C is asserted as the preserved claim.

B. In light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012), the instant sales contract was concluded on December 26, 2014 between C and the Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the return of loans against C on January 20, 2015, and C was exempted from the obligation by the Plaintiff to the court on March 2, 2015.