A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 30 million under the pretext of making an investment in the establishment of a local corporation in Papua New Daily and running a project for construction, civil engineering, etc., upon hearing the Defendant’s horses. As to the investment amount of KRW 25 million, the Defendant agreed to return it to the Plaintiff on November 15, 2015.

B. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above agreed amount to the plaintiff KRW 25 million.

B. Even based on the statement in Gap evidence No. 13, the defendant merely stated that the defendant should pay at least 25 million won to the plaintiff, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant agreed to pay the above money to the plaintiff. Other evidence, including witness D testimony, submitted by the defendant, is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 1-2, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant on the suspicion that the Plaintiff acquired money under the name of investment funds, but issued a non-prosecution disposition without suspicion against the Defendant due to lack of evidence. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s investment funds (in relation to the amount of money, dispute) was put into the said company’s incorporation funds and the return or recovery relation is difficult in light of the above circumstances, even if the Plaintiff’s investment funds (in relation to the amount) were to be returned or recovered as the funds for the establishment of the said company, the Defendant can find the grounds for such payment liability or collection.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for the agreed amount is without merit.

2...