1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from July 1, 2019 to September 19, 2019.

The judgment on the cause of a claim shall be accepted in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff maintained a de facto marital relationship with the Defendant from around May 27, 2017 to the end of May 2019; and (b) the Defendant prepared an agreement stating that “the Defendant would pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2019, if the two persons agree to hedge,” on May 17, 2019; or (c) the Plaintiff prepared an agreement stating that “the Defendant would pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2019.”

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant agreed to pay the above amount of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement in this case"). Thus, it is difficult to see that the division of property achieved through mutual cooperation between the parties during marriage is concerned with the division of property, and thus, it cannot be deemed a property division agreement). Barring special circumstances, the contract amounting to KRW 100 million (hereinafter referred to as "the contract amount in this case") and damages for delay are liable to pay

The defendant asserts that the defendant's declaration of intention as to the defendant's argument is not of intention, but of intention to pay the contract amount of this case, and the plaintiff is well aware of this fact, and thus the agreement of this case is null and void as a false declaration of intention.

The truth in the declaration of intention is that the reporter refers to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the reporter is true in mind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). Thus, the Defendant did not have an economic ability to pay the instant agreed amount.

Even if the payment of the agreed amount was not genuine, it cannot be deemed that there was no intention of deliberation to pay the agreed amount to the Defendant in light of the developments leading up to the formation of the agreement of this case and the content of the text, etc., and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone does not constitute a genuine intention of the Defendant.