1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” to the assertion that the plaintiff adds to this court, and thus, the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the content of the second agreement constitutes an unfair juristic act and thus null and void, on the ground that the Defendants’ pressured Nonparty Company with bad faith to take a breadth by abusing the emergency and imminent addresses of Nonparty Company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not conclude the second agreement, thereby causing disadvantages to solely bear heavy taxes.

On the other hand, an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there exists an objective imbalance between benefit and benefit in return, and a transaction which has lost balance as such is conducted by using gambling, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. The purpose of this act is to regulate gambling, rash, or inexperience of the victimized party. The term "gambling" refers to 'bombling difficulties' of a person in the socially weak position, which may be based on economic causes, and may be based on mental or psychological causes, and whether the injured party was in an imminent state or not should have taken full account of all the circumstances, such as his status and property status, and the degree of gambling in the situation at which the injured party was suffering from such a legal act due to gambling, rashing, or in without experience. Even in the Plaintiff's assertion, the injured party was at a disadvantage that the non-party company was trying to carry out the construction project in this case, and was at a disadvantage that the Plaintiff was a party.