1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 60,000,00 to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant, as the Defendant’s introduction, to make an investment in the enforcement project of the E apartment complex in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”).

B. On March 3, 2006, the Plaintiff was issued the right to move into the apartment of this case, stating that the Plaintiff invested KRW 30,000,000 in the instant apartment execution business from the Sejong AnnbD and the business participation agreement stating that the Plaintiff invested KRW 30,00,00 in the instant apartment execution business and that the amount of the deposit is KRW 30,000.

C. Around 2007, the Defendant: (a) drafted and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of confirmation stating that “I will confirm the right to move into the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D; (b) will be responsible for the daily payment of KRW 1,000,000 (the evidence No. 2; hereinafter “the instant certificate”).

The execution project of the apartment of this case was suspended because the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D's price was not designated as the candidate site for the improvement zone in the basic plan for urban and residential environment improvement, and it was impossible for the plaintiff to purchase the apartment of this case with the above occupancy right.

[Ground of certification] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the defendant recommended the plaintiff to make an investment in the apartment project of this case, and if the above implementation project is nonexistent and the plaintiff cannot purchase the apartment of this case, the defendant is obligated to return the investment amount of KRW 60,00,000 to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return the investment amount of KRW 60,000 to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is only limited to the plaintiff as a simple importer who is not an employee of the above company, and the certificate of this case is actually above the plaintiff.