The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 11 to 7 pages 19) is the same, except for the dismissal of the following matters. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third 5 to 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows.

With the Defendant’s proposal, “E and F agreed to purchase the instant G and H land jointly with the Defendant, and accordingly, from October 18, 2016 to November 16, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 150 million in total with the Defendant’s X bank account (the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 45 million, the total amount of KRW 45 million in the Plaintiff’s name, KRW 45 million in the Z, KRW 15 million in the name of Z, KRW 5 million in the name of Z, KRW 5 million in the name of Z, and KRW 50 million in the name of A, KRW 5 million in the name of Z), and the Defendant used it as the purchase price and the transfer of ownership, etc. of the said land.” The Defendant considered the “i.e., the cancellation of the instant agreement” of KRW 710 in the judgment of the first instance as “the cancellation of the instant agreement”.

The 7th 18th 18th 10th am of the first instance court's ruling shall be "14 to 16th am."

2. The reasoning for this part of the arguments by the parties is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (from the last 7th to the 9th 5th eth eth eth eth eth eth), except for the addition of the following:

The following shall be added between 9.5 pages of the first instance judgment and 6.

(D) On July 25, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to manage the funds contributed by the Plaintiff at the former North Korea Police Station after the completion of the development project for each of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case contrary thereto is unreasonable.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant proposed that the parties to the instant agreement would jointly purchase and develop the instant G and H land at the beginning, and that the Plaintiff’s mother F prepared the respective letter (Evidence A No. 3) dated October 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff’s mother.

but thereafter.