2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff as added by this court.

On June 17, 2015, the Defendant’s issuance and delivery of a letter of payment (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) stating that “480 million won is borrowed from the Plaintiff and repaid it in cash or by June 18, 2015 to the land of the instant case (hereinafter “instant land”) shall be deemed as having been without dispute between the parties concerned or by means of the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 9.

The Plaintiff’s claim as to the primary claim has a monetary claim of KRW 480 million based on the instant payment note, or one of the claims for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land, based on which the Defendant did not exercise the right of choice, and thus the right of choice was transferred to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff exercised the right of choice by seeking the payment of monetary claim of KRW 480 million with the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff exercised not only the right of choice but also exercised the right of choice with the claim of KRW 480 million with the claim of KRW 480 million with respect to the instant land. Since the right of collateral security was established for the debtor to the instant land as the Defendant and the mortgagee of the right of collateral security, the Defendant cannot transfer the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is unable to perform his claim based on the instant payment note is remaining in the monetary claim of KRW 480

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 480 million and damages for delay.

The defendant's assertion did not borrow money from the plaintiff, but was entrusted with the land of this case owned D in the name of the plaintiff.

D and the Plaintiff purchased a newly-built loan, etc. from investors with an investment, and then sold it to return the investment and its profits, but failed to return the investment and its profits to investors.

Upon receipt of a demand for return of investment amount from investors, the Plaintiff used D with investors to return the investment amount, and D is the Defendant, the title trustee of the land of this case.