1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2007, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant, lent the sum of KRW 140 million in total to D, who is the president of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., two times in the name of mechanical down payment, KRW 70 million.

B. From around that time to December 2009, the Plaintiff has continuously deposited money in the account in the name of the E-bank in the name of the Plaintiff, and has continued to engage in monetary transactions between the Plaintiff and the E-bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, including repeatedly receiving money from the E-bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 (including a branch number), and the result of the financial transaction information reply to Eul Co., Ltd. in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. On July 2007, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that “D leases and operates a factory, and if the Plaintiff invested KRW 300 million to the Defendant, the Defendant would leave the factory to the Plaintiff for each month with the revenue of the factory of KRW 300 million.” The Plaintiff paid KRW 140 million to the machinery manufacturer designated by the Defendant, who received KRW 70 million from the Defendant and received KRW 70 million from the Defendant, and thereafter paid KRW 140 million to the machinery manufacturer designated by the Defendant from September 2009 by means of account transfer or cash payment to the Dispute Settlement Council operated by D until September 2009.

This was caused by the Defendant’s deception and caused damages to the Plaintiff as much as the amount, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the total amount of investment, and the Defendant is entitled to preferentially claim KRW 500,000,000.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as follows, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant, together with D, invested money in the construction of a factory in direct contact with D and the Plaintiff paid a direct investment money to D. In light of the investment process and circumstances, the Defendant paid a profit to the Plaintiff.