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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. The plaintiff asserts that he lent the above KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 evidence, the plaintiff merely appears to have invested KRW 20,000,000,000, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff remitted KRW 20,000 to the defendant under the pretext of the loan. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the Plaintiff invested KRW 20,00,000,00 as above, the Defendant lost the benefit under the investment agreement that sells real estate and redeems the investment amount, thereby immediately returning the investment amount to the Plaintiff.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the agreement prepared by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 30, 201 can be acknowledged as having a statement that the return of investment was impossible prior to the sale of real estate. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments Nos. 1 and 2, the substance of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is to contribute funds to the Defendant-related company through the Defendant. In other words, if the conditions are satisfied for the sale of specific building owned by the company, namely, a specific building owned by the company, that is, a building owned by the company of the fourth floor in Jinju-si, the Defendant received profits from the company to settle the Plaintiff’s investment and profits, and the Defendant did not newly purchase the building.

The mere fact that the sale of the 4th floor building located in Jinju or C is delayed in selling the 4th floor building located in Jinju does not have any ground to deem that the defendant is liable to immediately repay the investment amount to the plaintiff, unlike the language of

4. Conclusion.