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 grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the court of first instance

except that part of the following shall be dried or added:

2. On the two pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, “Defendant C Accounting Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant C Accounting Corporation”)” (hereinafter “Defendant C Accounting Corporation”) was merged with T Accounting Corporation of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Defendant C Accounting Corporation”) and this court took over the instant litigation procedure of Defendant C Accounting Corporation of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Defendant C Accounting Corporation”). Following the foregoing, Defendant C Accounting Corporation of the first instance trial and C Accounting Corporation of the lawsuit taking over the instant litigation procedure.

On the 10th page of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added at the end of the fifth instance judgment:

The following is added to the 6th end of the first instance judgment below, “A’s statement (Evidence A21) submitted by the Plaintiff to this Court is merely the same purport of repeating the contents of the previous statement.”

Even if the evidence (Evidence A2 and 23) submitted by the Plaintiff to this Court is considered, it is difficult to view otherwise even if it is considered to be different. The following items are added to the 9th following the 13th sentence of the first instance judgment.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant D promised to return the down payment of KRW 10,00,000 on the part of the Plaintiff, and therefore, at least, the obligation to return the down payment pursuant to the said undertaking ought to be recognized. According to the purport of the written evidence No. 10-25 and the entire pleadings, Defendant D responded to H’s demand that Defendant D return KRW 10,000,000 at H and telephone call around February 1, 2016, and return the down payment of KRW 10,000,00,000. However, this fact alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a legal binding agreement on the return of the down payment between Defendant D and the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.”

3. The judgment of the first instance is legitimate.