The validity of the agreement in the case of failure to cancel the agreement of compensation for damage under the condition that the criminal complaint is withdrawn.

Where an agreement to pay five million won in money on condition that a criminal complaint be revoked, and the criminal complaint is not revoked, the said agreement shall lose its effect due to non-performance of the terms and conditions.

Article 147 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (72 Gohap1286)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

As the main claim, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 3,127,884, KRW 1,814,00 to Plaintiff 2, KRW 3,061, KRW 364 to Plaintiff 3, and an amount of KRW 5% per annum from September 15, 1972 to the full payment system.

As a preliminary claim, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 per annum from the following day from the service of the copy soar to the full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution sentence.

With respect to this claim:

The plaintiffs' legal representative, as the plaintiff's husband's agent, conspired with the non-party 4, the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 to acquire the plaintiff's property by deceiving the non-party 1, 3 and the non-party 1's agent, and the defendant 1 introduced the non-party 4 to the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's counter-party 1'

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion based on the premise that the defendants acquired the plaintiffs' property in collusion with the non-party 4 is unnecessary to determine further.

For Preliminary Claims

The plaintiffs' legal representative asserted that the above defendant's non-party 1, 3, and 2 should be charged with damages as alleged in the above above claim, and that the defendant agreed to pay 5,00,000 won as part of damages to the plaintiffs jointly. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant's above agreement was concluded only 4 of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to accept the witness's testimony other than the above mentioned above. Thus, the above argument against the defendant 1 is without merit, and it is hard to acknowledge that the defendant's defendant's defendant's testimony was cancelled 0,00 won as well as 0,000 won to the non-party 1's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 1's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's non-party 1, 2, and 3's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's non-1 and defendant 1's defendant's defendant 1's defendant's defendant's non-2.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is justifiable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just.

Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)