1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation in this part is that "(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied at a rate of 5% per annum, which is a civil legal interest rate, since the defendant claims under the Civil Act, based on a reconciliation agreement." However, the agreement in this case is presumed to be a commercial activity conducted by K and the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff who is the merchant, and thus, the legal interest rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act shall apply)" of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the statement about "(1) of the defendant's assertion that the agreement in this case is revoked." The part concerning "(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be received" and the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to adding the following contents to the following, it is consistent with the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The addition;

A. The judgment of the first instance court is 2.

B. Of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant appears to have asserted that the agreement of this case is revoked by the Plaintiff’s deception, but there is no other evidence to prove that the agreement of this case was revoked by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent by deception. However, each of the descriptions in subparagraphs 3 through 7 is insufficient to recognize the deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

''

B. Although the agreement in this case is valid, the defendant asserts that the amount that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff pursuant to the legal principle of appropriation of appropriation is merely the remainder after deducting the amount equivalent to the share of the K's construction cost from the amount payable (i.e., KRW 160,00,000 - KRW 78,000,000) under the legal principle of appropriation of appropriation of appropriation of appropriation (i.e., KRW 160,000, KRW 78,000). However, there is no evidence to prove that the amount to pay to K is included in the above amount payable.

3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant is the defendant.