1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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. On January 19, 201, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) received a request from Defendant B, which was a temporary meeting of the FF Association (hereinafter “the instant Association”) to lend KRW 50 million to the account in the name of G known by Defendant B on January 19, 201; and (b) drafted a letter of agreement that the instant Association’s officers and 16 representatives, including the Defendants, agree to pay the said money by sharing the said money if it is impossible for the instant Association to pay the said money.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was unable to receive the above loan obligations from the instant association.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff each KRW 3,125,000 (=50 million ± 16) and the damages for delay from January 20, 2011, which is the day following the date of preparation of each letter of payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant C, D, and E’s main defense

A. On January 19, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit against the said Defendants was unlawful since it was filed against the said Defendants, on the grounds that the said amount was irrelevant to the representatives of the instant Association, including the said Defendants, while the Plaintiff subsidized KRW 50,000,000 to the instant Association on January 19, 201, and that the said amount was not related to the representatives of the instant Association.

B. In the case where there are different opinions on the validity or scope of the agreement, the agreement to bring a lawsuit is deemed to have generated significant legal effects, such as waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution to the parties to the lawsuit, and is valid as to the circumstances that can be anticipated at the time of the agreement. In the case where there are different opinions on the validity or scope

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the respective descriptions of health class No. 2, and evidence No. 4-1 through No. 4, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.