1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court renders a dismissal or additional determination of the selective claim added by this court as set forth below 2. The court cites this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. As to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the testimony of a witness D” in Section 12 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “the partial testimony of the witness D and the partial statement of the evidence No. 9 of the witness D”.

⑤ The Plaintiff’s assertion states that “the Defendant would make more money by investing in money if there is a good investment place” and accordingly, C retains KRW 300 million to the Defendant. The assertion itself is merely deemed to have invested KRW 300 million in the Defendant, and even according to the assertion itself, it is difficult to deem that one of the parties has entrusted the other party with the custody of money, securities, or other things, and that one of the other parties has made a consumption contract (Article 693, Article 702 of the Civil Act) for the same kind, quality, and return of the goods.

4. The Plaintiff asserts that, on December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with C to additionally return KRW 220 million on the day when the Defendant returned the apartment owned by the Defendant to C, which stated that the Defendant would dispose of the apartment owned by the Defendant and additionally return the remainder of KRW 80 million.

As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe that part of the testimony of the first instance court witness D and the statement of the evidence No. 9, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, are the Plaintiff’s mother’s statement, and it is difficult to believe it as it is, and C, on August 6, 2012, remitted KRW 300 million to C again on December 3, 2012, and the Defendant transferred KRW 220 million to C again. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts of recognition and the statement of the evidence No. 11 are the sole fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection.