1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay KRW 83,290,235 out of the expenses incurred in the Gyeyang Design construction, etc., and sought payment of the said expenses as the principal lawsuit.

However, even if all the evidence and arguments submitted by the original defendant are integrated into the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff and the defendant have been seriously disputed to the criminal complaint due to the use of expenses, such as the establishment of the Yangbyter, the appropriateness of the amount, etc., and in the sense that they are terminated, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (No. 8) stating that "the plaintiff shall pay 40 million won to the defendant" on August 7, 2015 and delivered it to the defendant and the defendant revoked the criminal complaint

Thus, the above lending certificate preparation between the original defendant is deemed to have the nature of a settlement agreement that agrees to terminate all the monetary relations related to the expenses for the establishment of the existing bilateral book, etc., and the above settlement relationship between the original defendant before the establishment of the loan certificate is extinguished and only the legal relationship arising from the preparation of the loan certificate remains (Articles 731 and 732 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for expenses asserted by the plaintiff is without merit, since it is based on the already extinguished legal relationship.

The plaintiff argues that the loan certificate drawn up between the original defendant is not a settlement contract to adjust the existing monetary relationship, but a separate new contract to sell the defendant's bilateral book. However, in this regard, not only is it clearly explained how the existing monetary settlement problem that had already been at the time was settled, but also it does not clearly explain how the contract was settled in the form of a loan certificate.