1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s repeated or new additional arguments added in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, the court of first instance cited “19,820,000 won” as “18,820,000 won” in the second 10 of the judgment of the court of second 10. The court of first cites it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination of addition (whether a special agreement to bring an action in this case is null and void);

A. Article 104 of the Civil Act of the relevant legal doctrine provides that an unfair legal act may objectively be established when there exists a significant imbalance between benefit and benefit in return, and such an act is established when a transaction which has lost balance as such was conducted by using brush, rash, or inexperienced experience of the victimized Party. The purpose is to regulate brush, rash, orless experience of a person who is in the position of the weak.

Here, the term “pathmbling” refers to “brupting difficulties,” which may be based on an economic cause, and may be based on mental or psychological causes. Whether a party was in an imminent state or not should be determined specifically by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as his/her age and occupation, the degree of education and social experience, property status, and the degree of urgency in the situation at which he/she is faced.

On the other hand, even if the injured party was in an imminent state, the injured party was aware of the circumstances on the part of the injured party and did not have any intention to use it, i.e., bad faith.

If there is no significant imbalance between payment and consideration, or between payment and consideration, an unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da35722, Sept. 8, 201). The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act is an act of an enterpriser’s transaction with another party by unfairly taking advantage of its transaction status.