1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the plaintiff’s explanation of the decision on the additional selective claims in the trial as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Matters” The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 44 million and damages for delay, as the Defendant refused to pay the Promissory Notes at discount, and the Defendant unjust enrichment without any legal ground.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant secured the financial resources of the obligor of the said Promissory Notes, as well as that there is no evidence to prove that the sale and purchase contract of the said Promissory Notes was null and void, cancelled, or terminated. Thus, the mere fact that the instant Promissory Notes were rejected, it is difficult to view the Defendant as unjust enrichment of KRW 44 million without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

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

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment which is selectively added at the court of first instance is dismissed as it is without merit, and it