1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The facts that the Defendants borrowed a total of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on June 20, 2005, and KRW 20 million on June 30, 2005, and KRW 40 million on June 30, 2005 do not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million and damages for delay.

The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ defense, and the Defendants asserted that they did not have the obligation to pay since they renounced their rights to the above loans through the letter of agreement performance on March 23, 2011.

Judgment

According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as each of the statements and arguments in the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was delegated by the defendant B with the agency affairs to find the ground of the defendant B on June 6, 2007. The plaintiff adjusted the above delegated affairs with the defendant B on March 23, 201, invalidated the money that the plaintiff paid to the defendants in the year 2005, and as a result of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the 100 million won against which the plaintiff received the defendants, and the litigation expenses claimed by the other party as a result of the lawsuit, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff agreed to assume the responsibility for the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff prepared a letter of performance of the agreement.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff renounced the rights to KRW 40 million paid to the Defendants in the year 2005 by the agreement of March 23, 2011.

Therefore, the defendants' defense is justified.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the agreement of March 23, 201 for the execution of the agreement is to be conducted in E in each City, and is irrelevant to the instant loan, and that the agreement that Defendant B did not perform the obligation under the said agreement, thereby nullifying the money lent to the Defendants is null and void again, and the Defendants are obliged to pay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the agreement on March 23, 2011 was irrelevant to the instant loan is not only clearly contrary to the language and text of the letter of commitment performance, but also Defendant B.