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. The grounds for a judgment of the first instance shall be quoted for this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the first instance;

However, part of the following shall be cut:

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Once the first instance court Decision 4, the lower court found that the “10,000,000 won, which is a part of the damages incurred to the Plaintiff,” in the following 3 procedures: “The damages incurred to the Plaintiff, which is part of KRW 8,176,400,840,000, which is part of KRW 50,000,000.”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 2(b) of the Act on the Compensation for Damages Caused by Non-performance of Obligations (Articles 9(6) through 10(10) as follows.

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff could use the “three-year special installment repayment scheme” that the Defendant was unable to pay a large amount of profit to the Defendant around October 2008, under the circumstance that he/she paid a large amount of profit to the Defendant around 2008. However, the Plaintiff, a person in charge of the Defendant, may repurchase exchange insurance within one year under the condition that the director A, a person in charge of the Defendant, should pay a lump sum profit.

"In conclusion, the plaintiff received a loan from the new bank, and paid a lump sum to the defendant, and thereafter the defendant's person responsible for the defendant's side promised to enter into an insurance contract according to the terms and conditions agreed with the plaintiff.

However, on June 1, 2009, the defendant notified that the receipt of the plaintiff's insurance application by the defendant is not possible to conclude the exchange insurance contract on the ground that the plaintiff's receipt of the insurance application constitutes the equity capital potential grade as a result of the evaluation of the financial statements in 2008

As above, the Defendant did not enter into a exchange-transfer insurance contract on condition that the Plaintiff would make a lump sum repayment of profits, but did not perform it (non-performance of obligations) or, from the beginning, intended to receive a lump sum repayment of large profits from the Plaintiff at the time, had the Plaintiff actively induced and recommended the Plaintiff to make a lump sum repayment as if the Plaintiff were to perform it without having intended to perform it at once (unlawful act).