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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that "the plaintiff's clan" in the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to "the plaintiff", "No. 8" in the evidence No. 6 of the "3. Judgment", and "the fact that the plaintiff declared" in the part No. 16 of the "3. Judgment" was added to "the plaintiff's appeal (the defendant's appeal was dismissed on January 24, 2019 by the appellate court) but the appellate court's appeal was dismissed on January 24, 2019," and it is identical to the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the "2. Additional Judgment" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it is cited as it includes a summary pursuant to the main sentence of

2. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant reduced the purchase price of the instant real estate in KRW 500,000 from KRW 500 to KRW 400,000 per square year, and distributed the difference with L, M, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the act of breach of trust as above.

However, in light of the following circumstances that can comprehensively reveal the purport of the statement Eul evidence No. 7 and the entire argument, i.e., the plaintiff filed a complaint against L, etc. in connection with the conclusion of a sales contract for the real estate of this case, and ii) the prosecutor in charge of the Sung-nam District Prosecutors' Office in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition of incompetence against L, the circumstances and evidence alleged by the plaintiff are insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant conspireds with L, etc. to cause damage to the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.