1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the defendant as to the defendant's argument as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 279 million to the Defendant during the period from January 16, 2007 to April 5, 2007, it is also null and void as a false declaration of agreement to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall return the amount invested by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff until February 28, 2007,” as stipulated in Article 2 of the Business Agreement (Evidence A) and special agreement made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 16, 2007.”

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to return the above KRW 279 million to the plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the fact-finding of the first instance court that the Plaintiff lent KRW 279 million to the Defendant, and it is insufficient to recognize that Article 2 of the business agreement as of January 16, 2007 and the special agreement constitute a false conspiracy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above fact-finding or the provisions of the above business agreement constitute a false conspiracy.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 (including the number of branch numbers), the Defendant issued a proposal to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2007 that “if the Plaintiff pays KRW 150 million to the Defendant by January 26, 2007, the Defendant would return the said money to the Plaintiff by February 28, 2007,” and the Plaintiff can only be recognized that the Plaintiff delivered KRW 279 million to the Defendant by April 5, 2007, according to the Defendant’s above proposal.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.