A. From around 2001, the Defendant: (a) estimated hot spring hole in Incheon-gun C (hereinafter “C”); and (b) developed hot spring hole in a single unit; (c) had a lot number to develop hot spring hole; and (d) had a lot of difficulty in performing the project due to financial shortage.

B. Around June 2001, the Plaintiff received the Defendant through D, a land owner, who was known to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to invest in his own hot spring development project.

C. Around July 15, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to operate a hot spring development project (hereinafter “instant development project”) conducted by the Defendant in Japan with the Plaintiff. The Defendant assessed the value of the instant development project developed among them as KRW 2.4 billion, and invested KRW 1.2 billion in consideration of the Plaintiff’s acquisition by transfer of 1/2 of the pertinent development project right, and as a result, invested KRW 1.2 billion in consideration of the acquisition by transfer of 1/2 of the said development project right, and owned the share of the site in proportion to the funds invested by each of the parties in the future,

(hereinafter “instant trade agreement”). D.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to pay the above KRW 1.2 billion in lump sum at a specific date, but to pay the purchase price in a way that the Plaintiff pays the land in full and pays the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the original Defendant joint.

If the Defendant finds a parcel of land to be purchased while advertising the land that can be purchased in accordance with the instant trade agreement, then contact the Plaintiff and notify the Plaintiff of the purchase price of the land to be purchased, and the Plaintiff wired the purchase price from that time to time.

E. On July 19, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Incheon Reinforcement Police Station as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the ground that the Defendant, by withdrawing the land purchase price, acquired the difference between the actual purchase price and the actual purchase price remitted from

The plaintiff is the plaintiff.