The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

A. The Defendant is the representative director of Cambodia, which is a local corporation of Cambodia established on May 26, 2016, DCO. and LTPP. (Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter “Small Company”).

B. Around June 2016, the Defendant recruited a real estate fund to raise funds to purchase necessary land located in Cambodia Franch (Siank). The Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff’s husband C, was solicited to make an investment in the said real estate fund.

C. According to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 3, Jan. 25, 2017, the Plaintiff appears to have remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name to “C,” but the remittance note may not be ruled out that the Plaintiff intended to make an investor as “C” rather than the Plaintiff at the time of transfer.

However, it is deemed that there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the remitter is the plaintiff.

Then, the Nonparty Company remitted KRW 84,000,000 to the Korean bank account of the auditor F of the Nonparty Company, and the F, on the same day, remitted KRW 2,167,90 on the same day to the Plaintiff.

On the same day, the Defendant, under the name of the representative director of the non-party company, prepared a receipt stating, “The Plaintiff was invested in 70,000 as the land price in Cambodia, and the said investment amount was a land fund and issued to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2017.”

E. On January 26, 2017, the Defendant sent C a Kakao Stockholm message stating that “The Plaintiff’s investment portion was accepted as guaranteeing the Plaintiff’s 50% profits up to the end of the year, and would make the Plaintiff more profits at the end of the year with its principal added.”

F. On April 25, 2018, the Defendant sent C the Kakao Stockholm message stating that “10,000 (15,000) and 50% (15,000) of the principal will be deposited,” and then remitted KRW 16,20,000 to C’s account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence of No. 6 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion.