1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “Defendant C” in the judgment of the court of first instance as “Defendant A”; “Defendant A” as “Appointed A; “Defendant B” as “Appointed B; and “Defendants” as “Defendant and Appointor”; and “Defendants” as “Defendant and Appointor” in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the determination of new arguments added by the Plaintiff in this court as follows; therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

In addition, the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the plaintiff's alleged tort, defendant A, and B (hereinafter "the defendant side") lost the plaintiff's claim for the insurance money by receiving KRW 300,000,000 according to the previous agreement with the Kinmanex. The plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff of such fact despite the existence of the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle, and caused the plaintiff to enter into the agreement in this case by deceiving him.

The Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff to pay KRW 67,900,000 to the Plaintiff due to the said deception by the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the said agreed amount and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff as compensation.

The defendant asserted the return of unjust enrichment following the invalidity of the agreement in this case did not have the claim for damages arising from the accident in this case any more by receiving KRW 300,000,000 according to the previous agreement, but the agreement in this case was reached between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. The agreement in this case is null and void as it was made based on the declaration of intention of an unentitled person.

The defendant's side had already received more than three times the amount of agreement exceeding three times the deceased's statutory damages from the Twitex, but had the agreement in this case by deceiving the plaintiff. The agreement in this case was made for the purpose of the defendant's unjust acquisition of insurance money equivalent to the above amount of agreement from the plaintiff, and is good morals and other matters stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act