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

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

A. The Defendant is an executor and a truster who carries out the business of constructing and selling officetels and neighborhood living facilities on the ground of the Daegu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C, and D (hereinafter “D”) is a trustee related to the instant business, who is in charge of the receipt and management of subscription money for sale.

B. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a written subscription for parcelling-out with the Defendant to sell the entire two stories of officetels and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant subscription for parcelling-out”) with the content that the Plaintiff subscribed to sell the total amount of KRW 6,958,441,376, and the subscription amount of KRW 350 million (hereinafter “instant subscription for parcelling-out”).

The written application for parcelling-out in this case states that the Plaintiff deposited the subscription amount of KRW 350 million into D’s deposit account, which is a company for the management of parcelling-out proceeds, and the Defendant shall return only the principal without interest to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff requested the termination of the subscription before the date of notification of the conversion of the parcelling-out contract, and that the Plaintiff shall not raise any objection thereto

Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the subscription amount of KRW 350 million to D deposit account on the same day.

C. On November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared an application for renunciation of subscription and a written request for refund to the Defendant; (b) expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant subscription; and (c) returned KRW 350 million from D on November 10, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 8-6, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion that E, the actual owner and representative of the defendant's assertion, did not prepare for the business fund of KRW 350 million in relation to the business of the case in which the defendant had been proceeding, and it is impossible to obtain the PF loan from the financial institution. If the plaintiff invests KRW 350 million in the business of the case in the amount of KRW 350 million, he recommended the plaintiff to return KRW 70 million after the three months.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff invested KRW 350 million to the Defendant between the Defendant and the Defendant, and 70 million from the Defendant after three months.