1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. To reduce the purport of the claim in the trial.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff (the first name was “Co., Ltd. E,” but the same was changed as of October 29, 2010) entered into an agreement with the Defendant on June 14, 2010, concluded a contract with the Defendant on July 2007, by setting the construction cost of the manufacturing and installation of 235 million won of the cost of the construction of the Mapo-gu Manre Reconstruction Corporation, and of the Seoul Gangnam-gu G apartment reconstruction Corporation, and of the manufacturing and installation of strings, etc., from July 2007 to October 20, 2007, and completed the construction work.

On April 21, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a quasi-loan agreement with the Defendant to receive payment not later than August 30, 2009, with loans of KRW 150,000,000 which was not paid as the construction price.

Then, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the construction work of Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Hocheon-gun, and the construction work of Dancheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, and the construction work of Dancheon-gun, and two parcels of land, and completed the construction work. However, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 60 million out of the construction work cost, and the loan amounting to KRW 150 million as seen earlier, which was not paid KRW 150 million. On April 9, 2010, Incheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2010Kahap298, supra (i.e., KRW 60 million) as the right to preserve (i., KRW 150 million)’s claim against the Defendant’s J as the right to preserve.

On June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Defendant agreed to pay KRW 170 million for the unpaid amount of debt up to the time of the settlement agreement of this case, and the settlement agreement of this case is subject to the total amount of KRW 150 million recognized under the existing quasi-loan agreement and the claims for the construction price executed by the Plaintiff, and the settlement agreement of this case is based on the settlement of settlement of payment in a promissory note and a notarial deed of KRW 110 million and a notarial deed of KRW 100 million for a settlement of payment in kind for a single unit of debt in the instant settlement agreement. In full view of the above, it can be acknowledged that the payment in kind for one unit

The defendant was the content that the settlement agreement of this case was agreed at the first instance court as 170 million won.