1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the court's ruling is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance under Paragraph (2).

The second and third side of the judgment of the first instance court shall be the witness of the first instance court, respectively.

The plaintiff and defendant in two pages 11 to 12 of the judgment of the first instance court are "the plaintiff and defendant".

The following shall be added to 3 pages 10 of the first instance judgment:

The Defendant asserts that the content of the return of the above text message (A; hereinafter “the instant text message”) sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at the trial of the political party does not have the effect of the lawful revocation of the declaration of intention by mistake. According to the Defendant’s argument, the Defendant itself acknowledges that the Defendant has declared his/her intent to return the investment amount through the instant text message, but it appears to the purport that the Defendant asserts the revocation of the said declaration of intention.”

2. Additional determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) At the time of May 2014, the Defendant sought advice from the Plaintiff as to the instant case in a situation where the Plaintiff, etc. was under mutual conflict and intimidation from the Plaintiff, etc., and the Plaintiff sought advice from the attorney. However, the right of the attorney to ask the Plaintiff for wrong advice that the Plaintiff may be subject to punishment by fraud or embezzlement if the Defendant did not express his/her intent to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant sent the instant text message to the Plaintiff by making a mistake under the influence of drinking. Therefore, even if the content of the return of the instant text message is an expression of intent by mistake, it is revoked. 2) Even if the Plaintiff did not express his/her intent by mistake, the instant text message’s “legal act” of the instant text message.