1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. around 2013, the Plaintiff was engaged in goods transaction with C, the Defendant’s South-North Koreans.

B. On November 28, 2013, C received KRW 30,000,00 from the Plaintiff as cash security, and divided half of the proceeds from the sale of the goods supplied by the Plaintiff and C, and upon the Plaintiff’s request before two months, C entered into a business partnership agreement with the purport that C shall be responsible for the return of KRW 30,000,000,000, and issued a copy of the Defendant’s business registration certificate and a copy of the passbook to the Plaintiff.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted the said Cash Security KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account. On the same day, the Defendant transferred KRW 10,000,000 out of the said KRW 30,000,000 to C’s bank account, and the remainder KRW 20,00,000 to the bank account of the Bank well-known corporation, respectively.

C On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a loan payment certificate stating that the amount of 30,000,000 won shall be repaid in 50,000 won per month from February 10, 2015, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul's 1 to 4, 7 through 9 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion entered into an agreement on the business partnership with the defendant and paid the defendant KRW 30,000,000 accordingly, so the defendant shall return to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 26,00,000,000, excluding the above KRW 30,000, which was partially repaid, as stipulated in the above agreement.

3. As there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the agreement on business partnership (Evidence A) and the agreement on business partnership (Evidence A) cannot be used as evidence for the defendant. The remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the agreement on business partnership was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff's above ground is without any other evidence to prove it.