1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the following facts are recognized:

A. A. Around March 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to invest KRW 800 million in relation to the “E-building project” created by the Defendant to the “E-building project” (Article 3). The investment period is at least one year from the date of full payment of the investment amount and may be extended by mutual consultation (Article 4); the amount of KRW 800 million shall be paid in lump sum (Article 5); the Plaintiff may choose to repay the investment amount by means of cash repayment or large-scale repayment (use of golf course facilities); the repayment method may be made by calculating the interest rate on fixed deposit in commercial banks from the date of full payment of the investment amount; however, the repayment shall be made within one year from the date of full payment of the investment amount (Article 6); this agreement takes effect from the time of full payment of the investment amount; and the automatic effect shall expire when the repayment of the investment amount under Article 6 is completed (Article 7).

B. On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s corporate bank account.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on March 8, 2011, KRW 100,000,000 remitted to the Defendant, was part of the investment amount under the said investment agreement, as follows.

① Unlike the initial agreement, the Defendant changed the permission to a public golf course instead of a membership golf course to a membership golf course, and thus, the Plaintiff was unable to acquire membership to acquire membership to a membership golf course. Therefore, the Plaintiff cancels the said investment agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff as the restoration following the rescission of the contract.

② Since the Plaintiff paid 100 million won, not the full amount of KRW 800 million, the said investment agreement did not take effect pursuant to Article 7.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 100 million as unjust enrichment.

3. We examine the judgment, as follows.