1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff, who operates “C” and the Defendant, concluded a consulting agreement with the effect that “the Defendant first invested KRW 1 billion in the Plaintiff’s KRW D and 11 lots owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate and then bring the remainder to the Plaintiff’s consulting cost.” Of the transfer income tax, the Plaintiff entered into a consulting agreement with the effect that “the remainder shall be paid by the Defendant,” including the Plaintiff and the Defendant.”

(A) Evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 10-1) (hereinafter “instant consulting contract”). (b)

On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant that “the Defendant manages the passbook and seal of the Plaintiff’s account, and the relevant passbook may withdraw money for which the seal is affixed together with the Plaintiff and the Defendant accompanied.”

(A) evidence of heading 4.c.

On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and “as of July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff shall pay 40% (37,700,000 won) (37,700,000 won) and 20% (18,889,860 won) (20%) (18,889,860 won) at the expense of refund work in cases of full refund of capital gains tax paid in advance on the instant real estate” (hereinafter “contract as of July 24, 2014”).

A) On October 2, 2014, KRW 89,35,470 of the transfer income tax was refunded to the account under the Plaintiff’s name (Article 5, 6, and evidence 7-1 of the A) (Article 7-1 of the A), which was concluded on October 2, 2014 (Article 3 through 6, evidence 7-1, evidence 8, and evidence 10-1 of the A, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into the instant consulting contract with the Republic of Korea in a state of old-age and experience in gathering the risk of becoming a public auction, leading to the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract for the instant real estate with the Republic of Korea. The Defendant’s amount received through the sales contract exceeds KRW 642,815,910, and the instant consulting contract is an unfair legal act or practice.