1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the Plaintiff’s new argument at the trial as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following is added subsequent to the third fifth of the judgment of the first instance................................

The plaintiff appealed against the part of the defendant among the non-prosecution disposition above, but the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office dismissed the above appeal on May 21, 2015." The third party of the third party of the judgment of the court of first instance [based on recognition] added "No. 12-1 and No. 2" to "No. 12."

The amount of USD 6500 (70 million) per one "(70 million)" of the third party decision of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "$ 6500 (7 million)".

The following shall be added in front of the fourth decision of the first instance:

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent money to the parties even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the said money was given to the parties, has the burden of proving that the lending was made to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).

The fact that the fourth 13th 13th 1 of the judgment of the first instance court is alleged to be the purport, and even if the prosecution issued a non-prosecution disposition against the defendant on August 18, 2017, it is argued that the defendant was remitted money from the plaintiff under the pretext of obtaining the right to explore minerals on August 18, 2017, and that the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff in fraud.

2. The plaintiff, although there is no intention or ability to allow the defendant to take over F, which is a company that owns the right to explore African minerals, the plaintiff deceivings the plaintiff and the above acquisition cost.