1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of cutting down, adding, or supplementing as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Five parallels of “580,133,403” shall be added to “1,580,133,403,403” from the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance to “1,580, 133,403”.

The 6th written judgment of the first instance court "Nos. 12, 14, 15, 17 through 21" shall be written with "No. 11 through 22".

The 6th sentence of the first instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant settlement agreement”) following the “settlement agreement” in the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment.

(i) add '';

The following details shall be added or supplemented following the 7th sentence of the first instance judgment: “No evidence to acknowledge it exists”:

In this court, the plaintiff argued that in relation to the assertion of the above fraud or mistake, the above Crereret (Evidence A No. 14) reached the settlement agreement of this case. The defendant prepared the above Crettttte's written consent and conspired with the defendant as if the defendant agreed to do so. The plaintiff argued that the above settlement agreement of this case should be revoked because the plaintiff was erroneous by the defendant that he was raised from Shrether that the above written consent amounting to KRW 445,034,40, which is the amount stated in the above written consent, was caused by the settlement agreement of this case.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above consent form was forged.

In addition, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged in the statement No. 14 above or in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, that is, the defendant had already raised to the plaintiff the issue caused by the defect of the niver product of this case from October 2013, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant was provided with the above liver consent from the defendant on June 4, 2014, and the settlement agreement of this case was reached on June 5, 2014, which is the next day.