Plaintiff (Attorney Kang-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Souco Korea Co., Ltd.

June 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 126,904,891 won with 6% interest per annum from October 1, 2015 to the sentencing day of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on the grounds of the grounds of the reasons for filing the claim. On November 6, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2015 against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kahap1032, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit on the confirmation of the existence of the obligation and the compensation for damages.

B. around August 2016, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the following content between the Plaintiff and the Defendant:

The Reconciliation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) was prepared.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant withdrawn the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2015 Ma11032, and the lawsuit for damages, filed against the Plaintiff pursuant to the content of the instant agreement.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that although the agreement of this case was prepared, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim on the ground of the annexed cause of claim.

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the settlement contract between the plaintiff and the defendant pursuant to the agreement of this case. It is reasonable to see that the settlement contract has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant. The settlement contract is effective and creatively effective; ② the defendant has withdrawn the Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Gohap1032, which has the characteristics of the counterclaim against the lawsuit of this case, and ③ Paragraph (10) of the agreement of this case is reasonable to interpret that the execution time for the part on which the obligation to perform was imposed on the plaintiff as set forth in the claim of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the amount of money stated in the purport of this case cannot be permitted against the validity of the agreement of this case on the ground of the reasons for the attached claim.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment List]

Judges Yu Dong-dong