2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. As to the assertion that the Defendant is obligated to directly return the sale price to the Plaintiff, 1) The reasoning for the court’s reasoning on this part of the claim on a contract for a conditional third party is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, 2) The reasoning for the court’s determination on the claim on a contract acceptance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The reasoning for the court’s determination on this part is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus,

3) The plaintiff asserts that there was mutual understanding or agreement between the two parties, even though the instant agency contract or the instant business agreement does not constitute a third party contract on behalf of the buyer, according to Article 8 (5) of the instant agency contract and Article 7 (2) of the instant business agreement, etc., the plaintiff asserts that, where the sales contract between the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant does not return the sales price to the buyer, if the buyer B does not return the sales price to the buyer, the defendant, who is the fund manager, should return the sales price directly to the buyer.

B) According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 5 of this case’s agency contract, Article 8(5) of the agency contract of this case provides that the defendant shall pay the withdrawn amount directly to the contracting company of B or the lending company based on the grounds for the application, and the business agreement of March 19, 2004 (Article 7 of the certificate No. 5) provides for the protection of the seller under the contract of March 19, 204, and the specific content is the responsibility to return the sale price, etc