The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court: (a) agreed with Defendant B to withdraw a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the condition that I, the representative director of the Plaintiff, would receive KRW 1.7 billion from Defendant B throughO on January 14, 2007; (b) the fact that the Plaintiff’s KRW 1.7 billion was added to L; and (c) Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 1.7 billion to L who received the documents for withdrawal of the lawsuit fromO until February 1, 2007, when the first instance judgment was rendered on February 1, 2007, when he was sentenced to the judgment of the first instance; (d) L did not deliver the documents for withdrawal of the lawsuit to Defendant B; (e) partly winning the judgment of the first instance on the same day; and (e) L would transfer the right to collateral security to the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.7 billion on February 7, 2007, upon delegation of the right to withdraw the lawsuit from the Plaintiff and the company shall pay KRW 1.76 billion to the Defendant L.7 billion.

On the same day, Defendant B prepared a letter of this case stating that he will be liable for the occurrence of a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, etc. in connection with the above litigation case, and Defendant B received the withdrawal document from L on the same day and recognized that he submitted it to the court in the mandatary’s column by stating his name, address, etc.

Then, the court below held that it is difficult to view that the agreement on the withdrawal of a lawsuit, which was prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, has been modified after it was sentenced to the judgment, and that the defendant Eul offered to pay KRW 1.7 billion per week by delivering documents on the withdrawal of a lawsuit to L, and then submitted them to the court. In light of the contents of the written statement of this case, the defendant B may have a problem of violation of law in submitting the written withdrawal of a lawsuit after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance.