1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around March 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was recommended by C, the representative director of the Defendant, and the Defendant and the Defendant entered into an investment agreement with respect to membership golf clubs and sti business with a scale of 27 persons in progress. On March 8, 2011, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to investments. Unlike the initial agreement, the Defendant changed the permission to a public golf course rather than a membership golf course, which constitutes nonperformance due to reasons attributable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff intends to cancel the above investment agreement through the delivery of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the investment amount of KRW 100 million and its delay damages as restitution following the rescission of the contract.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the plaintiff is the plaintiff's business to create a golf course, etc. in Switzerland-si D in March 2010.

(A) Investment shall be made in the amount of KRW 80 million (Article 3), and the investment period shall be at least one year from the date of full payment of the investment amount and may be extended by mutual consultation (Article 4), and the amount of KRW 800 million shall be paid in lump sum (Article 5). In the case of cash repayment, the Plaintiff may choose to repay the investment amount by either cash repayment or reimbursement on a deposit basis in commercial banks from the date of full payment of the investment amount to the date of payment of the investment amount. However, in the case of cash repayment, only the principal shall be repaid (Article 6; hereinafter referred to as the “instant investment agreement”).

The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant on March 8, 2011. However, according to the instant investment agreement, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 800 million in lump sum, and the Plaintiff asserts that only KRW 100 million paid is a part of the investment amount, and the payment period of KRW 100 million claimed by the Plaintiff as a part of the investment amount would be free from the time of the investment agreement.