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

A. The Defendant is operating a gold bank with the trade name “D” in Changwon-si, Changwon-si C.

B. On August 10, 201, the Defendant received a request from the Plaintiff for purchase of the net amount of KRW 50,000 from the Plaintiff and received KRW 11,50,000 from the Plaintiff. On August 22, 2011, the Defendant received a demand to purchase the additional net amount of KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff and received KRW 4,960,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the delivery of net money and the claim for return of money

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff requested the defendant to purchase the net amount of 70s and paid the price in full. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the net amount of 70s to the plaintiff, asserting that the defendant refused to deliver the amount of 70s, and the defendant primarily requested the delivery of the net amount of 70s, and in addition, sought the return of the price as restitution due to the cancellation of the contract due to

As to this, the defendant asserts that from the end of October 201 to the beginning of November 2011, the defendant delivered the amount of 70s net money to the plaintiff.

B. Considering the following circumstances that are acknowledged by the respective statements and the purport of evidence Nos. 6-8 through 13, 4, 7, 1-7, 1-7, 9, and 6-1 of the evidence and the whole pleadings, the Defendant is recognized to have already delivered 70 money to the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff for purchase, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to reverse this, and there is no other counter-proof.

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

On September 11, 2012, when the Plaintiff made a telephone conversation with the Defendant on September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) had requested the Defendant to purchase the net money; (b) had left the Defendant once after making the last telephone conversation with the Defendant; and (c) had left the Defendant on the way on which the department store operator entered the Defendant; and (d) had the possibility that the Plaintiff would have received the net money from the Defendant at that time.

In addition, the plaintiff on December 21, 201 to the defendant.