1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the judgment of the court of first instance was accepted as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. On three pages 3, the following three pages are as follows: “C” (hereinafter referred to as “Investor 2”) and the 4th 15th 15th 15th 15th 15th 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 20

5 below shall be added to the following nine days:

G. On June 1, 2017, D: (a) the Defendants agreed to make an investment in USD 2,300,000 as stipulated in the instant land use right agreement; (b) the instant land use right agreement was terminated due to the Defendant’s failure to comply therewith; (c) thereby, D suffered damages of USD 525,000 paid to the Joint Development Corporation in order to extend the remainder payment period under the instant land use right agreement; and (d) the Defendants sent the notice of credit transfer and transfer stating that D’s transfer of the above damage claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

Under five pages, nine shall be carried out in the following manner:

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 were written in each of the statements, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the part of "B. Determination" (from 7, 16 to 8, 1) shall be written in the following manner:

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case is premised on the premise that the Defendants agreed with D as “the payment of US$ 2,300,000 to the Joint Development Corporation” the remainder under the land use right agreement.

However, the agreement of this case (Evidence A 1) is made between D and E, and the investment agreement of this case (Evidence A 2) provides for the division of business of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, who are shareholders of E, as well as the parties to the contract and the agreement, even if examining the contents of the agreement, the Defendants, the representative director or shareholders of E, are 23 million U.S. dollars as stipulated in the land use agreement of this case between D and D.