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.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty F and “G (Plaintiff’s wife)” are business facilities with 15 floors of reinforced concrete structure (framed) and neighborhood living facilities located on the H ground as of July 8, 2003, Guri-si, Dori-si, Dori-si, and H, Etel concrete roof (tel) and neighborhood living facilities.

On September 13, 2007, the name was changed on September 13, 200.

Of the 15 floors, a sales contract for the sale of buildings in lots (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the content that the sales price of KRW 700,000,000 (Separate No. 700,000,000) shall be KRW 80,000,000 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) was prepared for the entire 308,63 square meters (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff transferred each of the amounts of KRW 30 million on July 9, 2003, and KRW 30 million on August 29, 2003 (total of KRW 60 million) to the account under the name of the Defendant (Korean bank C).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) On July 2003, the Defendant agreed to provide the Plaintiff with KRW 60 million or KRW 80 million within six months if the Defendant lent the instant officetel to the Plaintiff, or to sell the instant officetel 2 or 1. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 60 million and the damages for delay. 2) At the option, the Defendant, in collusion with F, who was the representative of the above Etel’s bond group at the time, lent KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff on July 2003, in collusion with F, who was the representative of the above Etel at the time, would have caused the Plaintiff to purchase the instant officetel. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 60 million and the damages for delay as a result of the tort.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not deceiving the Plaintiff by borrowing money from the Plaintiff or in collusion with F. Defendant 2).