1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff remitted total of KRW 100 million to the defendant on Sep. 28, 2013, and KRW 90 million on Oct. 10, 2013, and KRW 100 million on Dec. 14, 2013, the defendant provided that "the plaintiff would repay KRW 130 million to the plaintiff on Apr. 14, 2014."

may be recognized as having been made and made.

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 130 million and damages for delay as stipulated in each of the instant agreements.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000, which the plaintiff remitted to the defendant, is about an average of KRW 500,00 per day by running gambling games at the casino located in the Philippines, etc., and asserts that the defendant is an investment amount that was paid pursuant to the above agreement to perform the above work on the condition that the profits are distributed at the ratio of the plaintiff 40% and the defendant 60%.

However, in a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content must be recognized unless there are any special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and content of the declaration of intent indicated in the document is clear and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). In addition, the amount of KRW 100,000 remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was paid as investments.

Even if the defendant agreed to repay the amount of KRW 130 million to the plaintiff through the letter of this case, the defendant cannot refuse to repay the amount already received on the ground that it is the investment amount.

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

B. The defendant's assertion that a false conspiracy is void, after the plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the plaintiff, demands the bond company to pay damages.