1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts of the judgment after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the Plaintiff and B jointly engaged in the business of acquiring and transferring real estate through auction.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. The lower court: (a) concluded on April 30, 204 that the Plaintiff jointly engaged in real estate sales business with B; (b) around June 2003 and around February 2004, the Plaintiff invested KRW 160,000,000 in aggregate; and (c) on several occasions, the Plaintiff acquired and transferred real estate through an auction, etc.; and (b) on April 30, 2004, B entered the same business relationship with B with the Plaintiff on April 30, 204, the Plaintiff acquired shares equivalent to KRW 15,009,000 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s shares”) out of KRW 1,6529,92,90 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s shares”); (c) upon the Plaintiff’s dispute between the Plaintiff and B, the Korea Land Corporation received ownership transfer registration for the instant orchard and deposited KRW 160,000 as B; and (d) upon the Plaintiff’s claim to expropriate the Plaintiff’s dividend income accrued from KRW 250, 201405,70145,2081,209.

Furthermore, the lower court determined by the Plaintiff.