Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the amount ordered to be paid additionally.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the Defendant’s solicitation, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 266,80,000 to the Defendant’s account from June 19, 2015 to September 30, 2016, and invested KRW 266,80,00 in F and G.

(1) A person who fails to comply with an order issued on June 19, 2015; 4.7 million won on July 8, 2015; 10 million won on August 11, 2015; 5 million won on September 16, 2015; 30,000 won on October 30, 2015; 5 million won on May 5, 2015; 10,00 won on December 1, 2015; 3.5 million won on January 28, 2016; 1.5 million won on January 28, 2016; 1.6 million won on January 28, 2016; 1.6 million won on February 15, 2016; 1.6 million won on March 4, 2016; 1 million won on June 16, 2016;

The defendant was in charge of the business of soliciting investors in the above companies, was prosecuted for violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and was convicted of a conviction.

C. On the other hand, on July 28, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 200 million won with respect to the J building K owned by the Defendant, but the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment, while making an investment, secured the said real estate up to 200 million won in total by the Plaintiff, and if the Plaintiff is unable to recover the principal, the Defendant would be held liable for the said collateral.

Of the above investment amounts, the principal returned by the Co-Defendant C in the E and the first instance court is 668 million won in total.

(2) On March 22, 2016, KRW 5 million; KRW 10 million on September 13, 2016; KRW 63 million on September 20, 2016; KRW 28.5 million on September 30, 2016; and KRW 17 million on October 17, 2016) / [Grounds for recognition] Each entry in the evidence under subparagraphs 1 through 7; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant’s appeal is reasonable as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from September 20, 2016, which the Plaintiff sought against the Plaintiff as to the principal amount of KRW 200 million and KRW 37,797,324 (amount of award in the first instance judgment) that the Plaintiff did not return to the said company after investing in accordance with the principal return agreement.