1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 20, 2018, the Defendant agreed to make an investment with the Plaintiff’s funds with the Plaintiff’s funds, known to Pyeongtaek around July 20, 2018.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff’s subsequent year from July 20, 2018 to the Defendant.

8. Until June 1, 2000,000 won (hereinafter “the instant money”) was remitted as indicated in the attached remittance statement, and the Defendant has no dispute between the parties, among the above money, the amount corresponding to each of the corresponding money listed in column 1 through 9 of the attached remittance statement No. 1 through 9, and the fact that the money was remitted by the Plaintiff in the name of F on August 5, 2018.

investment of 5 million won deposited in the encryption, but suffered loss.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not only to pay the instant money to the Defendant with the Defendant’s investment recommendation that made a profit as well as to guarantee the principal, but also to pay the money for the repayment of the Defendant’s debt that the Defendant intended to repay with the profit of the investment at the time when the investment profit was not yet accrued.

As such, the payment of the Plaintiff’s investment to the Defendant does not necessarily mean losses and is made by the Defendant’s investment solicitation to guarantee the principal, the Defendant agreed to guarantee the principal of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to that of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant invested most of the instant money transferred by the Plaintiff according to an agreement with the Plaintiff and five million won transferred by the Plaintiff on August 5, 2018, but incurred losses. As such, it was examined whether the Defendant agreed to return the invested principal to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant was to receive the investment money from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant agreed to return the invested principal to the Plaintiff, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.