The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not mean that the Defendant would jointly invest the land and buildings located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the victim in the amount of KRW 57,50,000,000 with the victim, and that the Defendant could not be found to have a duty to notify the victim of the fact that the victim’s investment condition differs from the victim’s investment condition, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

1. The Defendant purchased the instant real estate on January 14, 2008, and the same year.

2. 13. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate.

2) On January 2010, the Defendant agreed to have a fair division of profits from resale by selling the instant real estate with H and I. The Defendant, H and I determined the value of the instant real estate as KRW 520,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the secured debt amount of the mortgage, which was established on the instant real estate, and KRW 192,00,000,000,000,000 (= KRW 52,00,000 - KRW 23,00,000,000 - KRW 98,000,000,000 - KRW 1,500,000,000,000 for the instant real estate - KRW 3,50,000,000,000 for the instant real estate - KRW 1,50,000,000,000).