1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. As a result of examining the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence submitted by the parties, the court’s reasoning on this case is as follows: (a) the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, is rejected; and (b) the statement of evidence No. 35 through No. 37, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, is the same as the statement of the judgment of the first instance court, except for the following additional determination as to the conjunctive claim added by the Plaintiff at the court of first instance

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion B and the Defendant jointly operated “H” and used the account under the name of the Defendant. The amount transferred from the said account to F was jointly lent to F by the Defendant and B. The loan claims are jointly owned by the Defendant and B, and their shares are presumed to be equal.

After that, on March 15, 2012, F remitted KRW 100,000,000 to the account under the name of the defendant for the repayment of the above loan, as seen earlier, as it is jointly owned by the defendant and B, KRW 50,00,000 among them is owned by B.

However, B made the Defendant use of KRW 50,000,000, which is one of its own possession, in its own account, and it should be revoked as a fraudulent act since B donated the above KRW 50,000 to the Defendant.

B. In light of the various circumstances as seen in the judgment on the main claim as seen earlier, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that KRW 50,000,000, out of KRW 100,000, which was remitted by F to the Defendant by F, was a donation to the Defendant by B, or furthermore, the above KRW 50,000,000,00 is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

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

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims in this case are all dismissed as it is without merit.