1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion in collusion with C that the plaintiff would give specified goods to the plaintiff with the cost of transportation, such as small amount of checks, certificates of deposit, gold ingot, etc., and that the plaintiff would be punished for a larger amount of money. The plaintiff paid the defendant a sum of KRW 30 million on July 31, 2006 and KRW 20 million on August 7, 2006 to the defendant.

On February 5, 2008, the plaintiff prepared a written agreement to the effect that he was paid the above money to the defendant and did not file a civil or criminal lawsuit after being paid the money, but the agreement was written to the effect that he would compensate for damages in the future, and the agreement did not have the defendant's signature and seal nor did it receive the payment of damages thereafter.

B. Where the parties to a contract agree not to file a lawsuit even if there is a dispute over a specific right or legal relationship (hereinafter “non-litigation agreement”), if there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and if the objective meaning of the text is clear in cases where the content of a contract is written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be acknowledged, barring special circumstances.

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8.

On February 5, 2008, after the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant as a crime of fraud due to the reasons alleged by the plaintiff, the plaintiff prepared and signed and sealed a written agreement.

The above agreement states that the plaintiff was fully paid an amount equivalent to KRW 90 million on July 31, 2006, KRW 10 million on August 7, 2006, KRW 20 million on August 7, 2006, and KRW 60 million on August 8, 2006, and that the plaintiff would not file a civil or criminal lawsuit against the above case in the future.

According to the above facts, the above agreement appears to be an agreement on the legal relationship, which is the cause of the claim of this case, and it is contrary to this.