1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On the contrary, the Plaintiff primarily lent KRW 12.9 million to the Defendant on June 29, 2015, KRW 5 million on July 2, 2015, KRW 2400,000,000 on July 27, 2015, KRW 100,000 on August 20, 2015, and KRW 50,000 on October 1, 2015. Of them, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1.4 million, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 1.5 million on the Plaintiff’s loan and delay damages.

In this regard, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the money transferred by the Plaintiff is a loan, and the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, which seems to correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion, is difficult to believe this in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the person who made the statement, and there is no disposition document, such as a loan certificate, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid interest on the money transferred by the Plaintiff or urged the Plaintiff to pay it. Therefore, it is difficult to acknowledge that the above remittance alone is a loan, and there is no other evidence

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that, in the event that the money remitted by the Plaintiff was invested in the singing-out business as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to explain to the Plaintiff the method of operating the investment amount, profit structure and risk factors, and to report the progress of the business, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

However, the evidence presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the defendant bears a duty of care as argued by the plaintiff or has violated it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.