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 court’s explanation concerning the basic facts and the defense prior to the merits is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. As to the claim for damages due to nonperformance of obligation or the return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant would be able to continue the export business by withdrawing the complaint against G, and that G would pay KRW 70 million to the Defendant the amount agreed upon under the instant authentic deed, on the condition that G would repay the investment amount to the Plaintiff through the said business. Although the Defendant delayed withdrawal of the complaint against G and was unable to receive the repayment of the investment amount from G, the Defendant continued to perform compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by holding the authentic deed of this case without any legal cause, thereby receiving KRW 70,00,000 from the Plaintiff without any legal ground. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that he is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the nonperformance of obligation or return unjust enrichment.

In full view of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 10, the plaintiff lent loans of KRW 250 million to Eul, Eul, and Eul around August 2014, and Eul, etc. invested the total amount of KRW 70 million borrowed from the defendant in the F Co., Ltd. that is operated by Eul, etc.; however, if the above company's pro rata export business operated by the above company does not run properly, Eul, etc. filed a complaint with Eul for the crime of fraud, etc.; the plaintiff requested Eul, etc. to withdraw the above export business operated by Eul, and the plaintiff requested Eul, etc. to withdraw a complaint against Eul, but Eul, etc. refused to receive loans if so, the plaintiff refused to receive loans smoothly. The plaintiff's failure to do so between the defendant, C, D, and the above export business around February 7, 2017.