1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is identical to that of the following Paragraph 2, with regard to the matters for which the plaintiff asserts again in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination on addition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 10 million was reduced to KRW 40 million, which is merely about KRW 1/3 of the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 100 million. As such, C, a party to the instant agreement, who is a party to the instant agreement, has a significant imbalance between benefits and benefits. As such, C, a female’s husband, led the Plaintiff to pressure and return to enter into the instant agreement, and had C use the Plaintiff’s funeral status.

Therefore, the instant agreement constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act and thus null and void.

B. A juristic act that has manifestly lost fairness as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act refers to an act of obtaining unfair economic benefits by allowing the other party to return in return that has significantly lost balance compared to his/her own benefit. Thus, without any consideration, a juristic act in which one of the parties gives unilateral benefit to the other party is not a juristic act of a nature that can discuss whether it is fair.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da56833 delivered on February 11, 2000, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the agreement of this case is unilaterally exempted from the Defendant’s obligation, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff unilaterally obtained any benefit to the Defendant (the remaining claim of the Plaintiff that was reduced according to the agreement of this case and the remaining claim of the Plaintiff cannot be considered as the benefit of return that the Plaintiff newly acquired in return for the reduction). Accordingly, according to the agreement of this case, how much the Plaintiff’s claim is.