1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. The husband C of the rehabilitation obligor promoted a detached house development project (hereinafter “the instant project”) called “E-original house” at the Jeju-si D branch.

B. The Plaintiff and C entered into a partnership agreement with the content that the Plaintiff would invest funds in the instant project and that C would distribute profits generated from the instant project by promoting construction works and sales in lots (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff deposited the investment money in the instant business with the debtor’s account, and C took part in the purchase of land, building construction, and sale of land for the instant business with the aforementioned money as financial resources.

The instant project failed as a result due to the sale of buildings in units, etc., which was discussed between the Plaintiff and C on the settlement issues following the termination of the instant business agreement.

E. On October 20, 2017, the rehabilitation debtor pending the instant lawsuit, filed an application for rehabilitation with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017dan100144 on October 20, 2017, and the said court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures on November 7, 2017, and appointed the Defendant as the custodian.

F. The Plaintiff asserted as rehabilitation creditors in the above rehabilitation case, and reported 436,927,689 won of the principal as the settlement amount and damages, and 50,934,995 won of the interest as the rehabilitation claim until the day before the decision on commencement of rehabilitation procedures was made, but the Defendant raised an objection against the above rehabilitation claim and denied the existence of the above

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 25, 26, 27, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 14, 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness C of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff proposed that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 96,064,467 to the Plaintiff the settlement amount following the termination of the instant club agreement. Around August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to the settlement agreement.