1. Upon receipt of a claim for change in exchange at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,000,000, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff on April 2014.

Comprehensively taking into account the reasoning of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 7 and witness D's testimony, the defendant was invested in KRW 300 million in connection with the sales business of the commercial building in Bupyeong-si E 1 and 2 complexes from March 3, 2004. The defendant prepared to D on March 4, 2004 a cash custody certificate with the above KRW 300 million working for D as representative director, and affixed his personal seal impression in the custodian column as well as affixed his personal seal impression. The defendant transferred from October 13, 2005 to February 1, 201, to D over 437,570,000 won in the name of the defendant, G, H, I, C, etc., and notified the defendant of his return of the claim to the plaintiff as the above KRW 300,000,000,000 to 31,201.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

[Defendant asserts that since the other party who invested KRW 300 million in D is a stock company C, the defendant is not liable to return the above investment amount, and D is also liable to return the investment amount unless it is proved that there was no investment loss. However, in light of the fact that the defendant affixed his personal seal impression on the cash custody certificate in the name of a stock company C, the defendant did not make any agreement on the responsibility to return the investment amount when the defendant and the loss occurred, and rather, returned the investment amount to the plaintiff in the name of the defendant's individual for a long time, it is difficult to accept all the above argument by the defendant.) Even if the defendant's assertion on the defendant's defense that the defendant's investment amount is liable to return the investment amount to the defendant, the above claim is acceptable.