1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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.

The reasoning of the first instance judgment is reasonable.

The testimony of the witness G of the trial court is not consistent or is based on the contents that the plaintiff's representative director D, and it is not appropriate to use it as evidence to recognize the facts alleged by the plaintiff.

In addition, the reasons for the judgment of the first instance are still reasonable even after examining the contents of evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2 submitted by the court of first instance in addition to the evidence submitted by the court of first instance.

Therefore, according to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as the reason of this judgment, and below added the judgment on the main argument that the plaintiff added or repeated in the trial.

The plaintiff asserts that at the time of signing and sealing his letter of delegation (No. 2) for the preparation of authentic deeds, the amount of claims on the power of attorney and the mandatory partitions were blanks, etc., and later C or the person on the defendant side had filled the blanks at will without obtaining supplementary rights from the plaintiff.

However, even if all the evidence presented in this case were collected and examined, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was a disturbance with the amount of claim and the mandatory column at the time when signing and sealing on the power of attorney for the preparation of authentic deeds (No. 2). Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, upon the Defendant’s production of scrap machine, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to distribute the scrap machine upon receiving investment from the Defendant, and then received money from the Defendant as the payment for the production of scrap machine or the settlement of investment contract under this contract. However, the Plaintiff asserted that, at the Defendant’s request under this contract, the Plaintiff only prepared the supply contract for the instant facilities with the Ansan-D Company and did not receive money from the Defendant.

However, as seen earlier, the testimony of the witness G of the trial party who seems to be fit for the plaintiff's above argument is not appropriate to be used as evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and otherwise, in this case.