1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a representative director of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and the defendant is a managing director who belongs to D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) in charge of business and production management.

B. The Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant KRW 5 million on May 4, 2016, KRW 4 million on May 25, 2016, KRW 6 million on May 30, 2016, KRW 7 million on May 30, 2016, KRW 5 million on September 9, 2016, KRW 5 million on December 9, 2016, KRW 17,000,000 on March 17, 2017, KRW 5 million on April 7, 2017, KRW 200,000 on May 11, 2017, KRW 300,000 on May 24, 2017, KRW 5 million on May 25, 2018, KRW 5 million on May 25, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant amount”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) from May 4, 2016 to April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the Defendant a total of KRW 57 million on 11 occasions; and (b) the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 57 million and delay damages.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The gist of the Defendant’s defense is unlawful, contrary to an agreement on the lawsuit filed between the Plaintiff and D, a company to which the Defendant belongs, and E, for which the representative director was the company.

B. In a case where an agreement not to file a lawsuit even if a dispute arises with respect to a specific right or legal relationship that is determined (hereinafter referred to as “non-committee agreement”), there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and the parties and persons involved in the litigation are contrary to the principle of trust and good faith that they shall perform the lawsuit in good faith (Article 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, in a case where a lawsuit is filed against the agreement on the non-committee agreement, the court may

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). Collegiate agreement is specified within the scope of the right of the parties to the agreement to dispose of.