1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if evidence submitted to the court of first instance and evidence submitted to this court are combined, the fact-finding and judgment of the judgment of the court of

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the supplementary decision as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not understand the meaning of the specific act that the defendants intend to engage in while being detained by her husband and did not commit an act of obstruction of auction in collusion with the defendants. Thus, the agreement on the payment of the agreed amount between the plaintiff and the defendants on March 2015 does not constitute an act of anti-social order which becomes null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

B. According to the written evidence Nos. 9, 11, and 12 (including a branch number if there is a branch number) of the judgment, ① the Plaintiff’s husband I was detained at the time when the payment of the said agreed amount was agreed and was under criminal trial; ② the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants for charges of obstructing auction, etc., but the Defendants were subject to the disposition of non-prosecution of the said suspicion (no suspicion) by the prosecutor on May 29, 2017.

However, in full view of the following circumstances that can be seen as pointing out the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers), the above facts alone are insufficient to reverse the fact that the agreement on the payment of agreed amount between the plaintiff and the defendants constitutes an act of anti-social order on March 2015, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the same applies even when considering other evidence submitted by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

1. The above agreed amount.