1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s selective claims added by this court, shall be modified as follows.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 25, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 32.5 million to the Defendant, a private village student (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. On February 3, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the portion of 1/4 shares owned by the Defendant among the 1/4 shares in Ansan-si Group C Nos. 113 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the 1/4th, Ansan-si, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, as the obligor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, as the obligee.

C. On the other hand, on January 10, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution (U.S. District Court 2017No7666) for the criminal facts that “the Defendant acquired the instant money from the Plaintiff,” and the Defendant appealed and is currently pending in the final appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1608). [Grounds for recognition] A / [In the absence of a dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9, and Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) since the plaintiff lent the money of this case to the defendant, the defendant should pay the money of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff. 2) Even if not, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff and acquired the money of this case from the plaintiff, so the defendant should pay the amount equivalent to the money of this case and damages for delay as compensation for damages caused by tort to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is not a loan, but a joint purchase of and investment in the instant commercial building by four persons including the Defendant, etc., not a loan. The Defendant’s investment was made from the Plaintiff due to the lack of funds.

Since the commercial building of this case was sold by auction and the defendant did not recover the investment money, the defendant is not obligated to return the money to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence and the statement in Gap evidence No. 3 as to the loan claim (the selective claim No. 1) 1.