1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the court below 15th to 11th day of the 15th day of the judgment of the court of first instance 18th day to the 19th day of the 19th day of the 19th day (C.

“The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of invalidation in accordance with the legal doctrine of unfair legal act, each embezzlement as set forth in Article 2-A-1 of the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a tort committed by the Defendants, and thus, if the claim for damages arising from the above embezzlement constitutes an unfair legal act as set forth in Article 104 of the Civil Act, the agreement on the lawsuit in this case constitutes an unfair legal act as set forth in Article 104 of the Civil Act. In the process of the acquisition of the hospital in this case and the performance of the contract on the business of the said hospital in this case, the agreement on the lawsuit in this case is null and void since it prevents the Plaintiff from asserting the disadvantage caused by the above unlawful act as to the Defendants’ money enforcement through judicial remedies,

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the agreement of this case was null and void on the premise that the Defendants embezzled the business property of this case. Therefore, first, we examine whether the Defendants embezzled the business property of this case.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 16 and witness U of the first instance trial, there is a difference between the cash revenue of the instant hospital listed in V and the amount deposited into the account for the business of the instant hospital in the name of the plaintiff, and the difference is about 1,498,573,533. The fact that the difference is about 1,498,570 won, totaling KRW 202,631,470 from the business account of the instant hospital in the name of the defendant C, and KRW 105,675,955 won from the business account of the defendant C, and the business account of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff.