1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff by July 3, 2009, the sum of the expenses of KRW 250 million and educational expenses of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff on April 3, 2009, when the defendant received necessary education between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on April 3, 2009.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining KRW 200 million after deducting the amount of KRW 50 million, which the plaintiff received, from among the above agreed amount of KRW 250 million, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Defenses;

A. The defendant asserts that the above agreement is null and void as an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act or a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

However, solely on the ground that the amount that the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff is the price for the rescission of the contract, or that the amount is KRW 200 million, it is insufficient to recognize that the payment agreement between the original Defendant is a juristic act with respect to which the payment agreement has considerably lost fairness, or matters contrary to good morals and other social order. There is no assertion as to other specific reasons that the said agreement constitutes an unfair juristic act or anti-social order.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The defendant also has a defense to the effect that he paid KRW 50 million to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff claimed the remainder after deducting the agreed amount from the contract amount, while the plaintiff was paid KRW 50 million from the defendant, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant paid the above KRW 50 million to the plaintiff only with the document No. 2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant is clear on the record that the remaining agreed amount of KRW 200 million is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff.