The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 295,890 and its relation to the Plaintiff from January 1, 2011.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, except for the modification of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2 and the addition of the judgment as follows 3, and is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including “attached Form” and excluding the part “4. Conclusion”). Thus,

2.The modification shall add to the following 3 pages:

The instant arrangement explicitly provides that “In the event a cause attributable toG occurs, the instant agreement shall be null and void.” However, from 6th to 9th following, the instant agreement shall be amended as follows:

The fact that the instant agreement provides that “When a cause attributable toG exists, this agreement shall be null and void and shall claim damages, the amount paid and shall be entitled to claim damages.”

그런데 ◎ 일반적으로 계약의 무효는 계약이 성립 당시부터 성립 요건을 갖추지 못하여 효력을 발생하지 아니하는 것으로 일단 계약이 성립 요건을 갖추어 성립하면 그에 따른 효력이 발생하고, 법에 정하여진 취소 사유나 해제 사유가 있는 경우 당사자가 이를 행사함으로써 그 효력을 소멸시킬 수 있을 뿐인 점, ◎ 통상 일방 당사자의 귀책사유에 의한 주된 채무의 불이행은 계약의 해제 사유인 점, ◎ 계약이 해제되더라도 계약은 계약 체결 당시로 소급하여 효력을 상실하는 점 등에 비추어 이 사건 약정에 G의 귀책사유가 있는 경우 이 사건 약정이 무효라는 문언이 기재되어 있다

Even if G does not perform the obligation stipulated in the instant agreement on the grounds of its responsibility, the purport of the agreement is that if G does not perform its obligation on the grounds of its responsibility, the Defendant may terminate its validity by rescinding the instant agreement, and that the instant agreement does not immediately become null and void on the ground of its non-performance of obligation attributable to G.