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.

1. The reasoning of this court concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion-based special agreement to bring an action on each of the instant letters was made under the Plaintiff’s old-age, rashness, and inexperience, and as long as there exists a significant imbalance between the Plaintiff’s benefits given up and the consideration given by the Defendant given up, the special agreement to bring an action on each of the instant letters constitutes an unfair legal act

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to prove the plaintiff's above assertion. Rather, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries in the above facts and evidence Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 11 (including the serial number) and the whole purport of arguments, the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant on the grounds of the defendant's failure to pay the construction cost, namely, ① the plaintiff filed a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant on the grounds of fraud, but the non-prosecution disposition was made against the defendant, ② the plaintiff made a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant on the grounds of the non-payment of the construction cost, ② it is difficult to see that the special agreement on the non-prosecution in each of the documents of this case was made under the plaintiff's old-domination, Domination, and experience. ② The defendant remitted the plaintiff to Korea Electric Power Corporation for the reason that the plaintiff did not pay the plaintiff the above amount of the construction cost, but the contract of this case was withdrawn from each of the above lawsuit, and whether the plaintiff paid the construction cost to the plaintiff's prior payment of the contract between the defendant.