1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is entitled to pay 20 million won per face value, issue date on October 31, 1995, issue date on April 30, 1996, issue date on April 30, 1996, KRW 30,1250,000 per face value and per face value, issue date on December 30, 1995, the due date on March 31, 1996, and one promissory note that is the plaintiff as the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 20,000 won for damages for tort to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the lawsuit of this case violates the subordinate agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.

In the case where there is any difference between the parties on the validity or scope of the agreement to bring an action, the agreement to bring an action is an important litigation law, such as waiver of the right to a trial guaranteed by the Constitution, and it shall be valid as to the circumstances anticipated at the time of the agreement. In the case where there is any difference on the validity or scope of the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449 Decided November 28, 2013) According to the purport of the written evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded on March 5, 2015, that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million in installments, and the Plaintiff shall withdraw both criminal complaints against the Defendant and the lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant, and shall not file a civil lawsuit or criminal complaint against the Defendant under any circumstances in which they are in office and in whatever manner (hereinafter referred to as “agreement on the lawsuit against the instant case”).

According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the issue date of a promissory note in the name of the Plaintiff, forged by the Defendant, was October 31, 1995 and December 30, 1995. Therefore, from the Plaintiff’s standpoint, damage related to the said promissory note was sufficiently anticipated at the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the Plaintiff’s complaint.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was included in the damages claim lawsuit arising in relation to the above promissory note.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .