1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant are all the parties, and the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff on November 201, 2013, and thereafter, issued the right to receive reimbursement to improve the Plaintiff’s ability as an unqualified party, and disposed of the Plaintiff’s legal instruments as part of the right to receive reimbursement. However, even after the right to receive reimbursement, the Plaintiff did not have much ability as an unqualified party.

This constitutes a tort caused by the Defendant’s nonperformance or deception, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 5 million for the expenses incurred in the Plaintiff’s performance of the right to rescission of the contract and KRW 7 million for the re-purchase of the subject matter by law (i.e., KRW 5 million) and KRW 2 million for return of unjust enrichment or compensation for damages due to the rescission of the contract.

2. Determination

A. The non-speed, such as the exercise of the right of redemption, does not sufficiently explain the fundamental principles, nature, etc. scientificly, but it is a kind of non-governmental culture that has been widely implemented from the ancient world for a long time among the general public, and its meaning or subject is within the scope of objectively recognizable logic.

It is rather established on the premise of mental and non-humanistic world, such as soary or eary, rather than on the premise of marriage.

Therefore, in the execution of such a non-speed, most of the purpose of the proposal or evaluation in mind, which is obtained by the direct or indirect participation in the process, rather than demanding the achievement of any objective. In exceptional cases where any objective is attached to the achievement of such objective, the operator (a party, etc.) committed an act of non-speed generally conducted in the speed industry in order to achieve such objective objectively and objectively, and as long as it was based on the subjective intent to achieve such objective, the operator, even if the intended purpose is not achieved, was deceiving the requester, who is the operator, of the right to demand the performance of the contract, etc.

such obligations may not be deemed to have not been performed.

B. The Defendant around November 2013.