1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasons for this Court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance court concerning this case are as follows: "The plaintiff's side" in the second part of the second part of the judgment of the first instance as "the plaintiff's side"; and "each of the above investment agreements" in the third part of the judgment of the first instance as "each of the above investment agreements" in the second part of the third part of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, “3. Of the first instance judgment,” the part on “the Defendant’s defense” (from No. 6th to No. 21th to No. 11th to No. 20th of the first instance judgment) is the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The purport of the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s defense is that the instant business license acquisition agreement was not established or invalidated for the following reasons, or was legally revoked or cancelled, or may refuse to implement the agreement. As such, all the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. The instant business license acquisition agreement of this case is not established or invalidated for the following reasons (the grounds are selective assertion) (the instant business license acquisition agreement of this case) is null and void: (a) the Plaintiff’s side of the Plaintiff’s business license acquisition agreement of this case is not established or invalidated for the following reasons; (b) pursuant to Article 1.1.1 and 1.2 of the CA with the E company, “the authority to conduct the business of developing commercial and residential facilities in the Gdong and Hdong area along with the E company in the Republic of Korea” (hereinafter referred to as “exclusive development business right”).

Under the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the above business rights, the Plaintiff was a contract transferring such business rights to the Defendant, and according to the content of the CA concluded between the Plaintiff’s side and E, the Plaintiff’s side did not acquire the exclusive development right itself.

Therefore, since the exclusive development project right that the Plaintiff agreed to transfer to the Defendant under the instant business license agreement was not attributed to the Plaintiff’s side from the beginning to the beginning, the instant business license agreement aims to provide the benefits that are originally impossible.