1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,250,00 and the Plaintiff’s 20% per annum from December 27, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and the following.

The Defendant, upon receiving seven million won from the Defendant, agreed to leave the Plaintiff’s house owned by the Defendant (Yju City C) to the lessee, agreed not to hold a civil or criminal liability against the Defendant if the Plaintiff failed to pay the said money to the lessee and return the said money to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff was unlawful on the ground that the condition of the non-litigation agreement was not fulfilled due to the Plaintiff’s payment to the lessee or not to return the said money to the Defendant.

According to the evidence Eul Eul 7, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared and delivered each letter dated July 14, 2014 (hereinafter "each letter of this case") with the purport that the defendant would not be held liable for civil and criminal liability against the defendant, and that the plaintiff would return the rent of seven million won in advance by the above housing lessee on behalf of the plaintiff and withdraw the lessee. In the event that the plaintiff did not pay the money, the plaintiff would waive the exchange of money between the plaintiff and the defendant and would not pay the money.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as adding the whole purport of arguments in the statement Nos. 6 and 8, namely, the defendant, at the time of the preparation of the statement of this case, had D residing in his own house and maintained internal relations, but was a lessee who has paid seven million won in advance. The plaintiff prepared a written statement of this case with the knowledge that it would be possible to present the tenant if he believed the defendant's horse and paid seven million won in advance, and the plaintiff, who was aware of the fact late, denies the validity of the above agreement in this lawsuit, it is sufficient to deem that the above written statement of this case constitutes an expression of intent by fraud, and that it was revoked by the plaintiff.

Therefore, since the above sub-committee agreement has no effect, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

The evidence Nos. 6 and 8 as the cause of the claim against the merits.