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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On May 2006, the Plaintiff discussed the Defendant’s introduction, which was an adviser of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), about the investment of KRW 2 billion from F.

B. On May 25, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with F to borrow KRW 150 million with the Plaintiff’s shares as collateral, and F, on the same day, remitted KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On May 25, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s bank account, and KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s FindingD’s national bank account.

On May 26, 2006, F entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff’s food waste disposal business, and agreed to set off the purchase price of new shares and the above loan if the Plaintiff would acquire new shares in the future.

E. On July 13, 2006, F notified that it terminated the above memorandum of understanding on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract, and around September 2006, F filed a complaint against G with the Plaintiff’s representative director G on suspicion of fraud.

F. On May 1, 2007, the Defendant testified to the effect that “The business fund was required, and it was not received as a fee,” to the effect that “The business fund was borrowed from the Plaintiff, and was not received as a fee.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that he/she lent KRW 50 million to the defendant, and that he/she sought a loan, and the defendant was paid KRW 50 million for F's attraction of investment, and that he/she cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the investment attraction agreement was reversed due to reasons attributable to the plaintiff.

B. The judgment is based on the following: ① the Defendant was a person employed as F’s adviser, and the Plaintiff was not at a position to receive fees by introducing F’s investment to the Plaintiff; ②.