1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the plaintiff claims again or submits new evidences at the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 25 of the International Judicial Act allows the parties to make an ex post agreement on the governing law of the contractual relationship, but there is no basis or evidence to deem that the governing law of the said contract was implicitly agreed upon by the law of the Republic of Korea after the conclusion of the instant contract after the Plaintiff and the Defendant made an ex post facto agreement on the governing law of the contractual relationship,” and Article 6-20 of the Korean Civil Act provides that “If the instant contract becomes null and void pursuant to the laws of the State of California, the Plaintiff claims the return of unjust enrichment as the conjunctive cause of claim. Meanwhile, Article 31 of the Private International Act provides that the governing law of the legal relationship shall govern if unjust enrichment was incurred based on the legal relationship between the parties.” Thus, the said conjunctive cause of claim shall also be governed by the law of the State of California.”

Article 37 of the 8th sentence of the first instance court shall be amended to "Article 338".

"The evidence No. 27 of the judgment of the first instance shall be added at the first first of the 7th sentence of the first instance court."

“No evidence exists” in the last sentence of the 12th judgment of the first instance court, and later “No evidence” in the following: “No evidence No. 26 Wolf submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial.

v. It is difficult to see that the new relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is recognized even if it is based on the statement in the judgment of 107 Cal.Ap.4th 25 (2003) in Supior Court.

“” shall be added. The 13th to 5th 6th am of the first instance judgment “instant case.”