1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff continued to supply the Defendant (mutual C Co., Ltd. prior to the change) with a large number of motor vehicles.

B. On July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff’s representative D and E, a joint representative director of the Defendant, drafted a written agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Price for goods under an agreement: 155,428,000 won

1.The following Parties (creditors, debtors) agree:

2. A debtor E shall pay 12 million won out of 52/3 and 12 million won out of the price of goods for goods by July 31, 2018, and shall pay 40 million won in installments within two years from the date the debtor himself/herself agrees (from July 31, 2018).

3. From July 31, 2018, which is the date of the agreement on the price of the goods, creditors confirm that the repayment liability is not in C and there is no further additional obligation.

Attachment: A copy of the debtor's identification card on July 31, 2018; the parties to the above agreement

1. Creditor’s name (trade name): D (hereinafter referred to as “resident registration number, address, and telephone number omitted”);

2. Debtor's name (trade name) : E (hereinafter referred to as "resident registration number, address, and telephone number omitted) : F The fact that the representative director of the K-In-Law Bank of Korea has no dispute over G Ha [based], Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings described in the evidence No. 1;

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant paid 50 million won out of 135,728,00 won for the goods supplied by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the price of the goods in this case") and did not pay 88,728,000 won for the remaining remaining goods.

It was true that the Plaintiff made an agreement with the same content as the written agreement of this case (hereinafter “the agreement of this case”). However, since the Plaintiff made the agreement of this case by deception of E, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of this case is revoked on the ground of deception.

In other words, E would make a false statement that the price of the goods to be paid to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant agreement will be reduced to pay the price of the goods.