1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial is dismissed.

3. Costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where a judgment on a new argument in the court of first instance is added as stated in paragraphs (2) and (3) below, and thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. As to the plaintiff's claim of abuse of rights against the defendant's main claim, the plaintiff did not claim implementation under the investment agreement of this case with the defendant's belief that the plaintiff would return the investment principal and the investment return money, and as to the plaintiff who is the victim of the defendant's planned fraud, recognizing the completion of the extinctive prescription of the investment principal and the investment return claim against the plaintiff, which is the victim of the defendant's planned fraud, causes a substantial unfair or unfair outcome, the defendant's defense of extinctive

However, the above circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone cannot be seen as violating the principle of good faith or constituting abuse of rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain approval of a business plan from the competent authority, even though the defendant is not able and able to pay investment principal and investment return money pursuant to the investment agreement of this case, while carrying out the construction project of the main multi-purpose apartment in Suwon-si D, Suwon-si (hereinafter "the project of this case").

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay 154,494,453 won which has not been repaid out of the amount of fraud as compensation for damages caused by the tort and damages for delay thereof, since the plaintiff received 320,000,000 won as investment money from the plaintiff because the purchase consultation with the landowner of the project site has been completed.

(b) written evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, as well as this.