1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant would not have the intention or ability to obtain authorization of the extracting plan in collusion with C and D, but would be responsible for the plaintiff and obtain authorization of the extracting plan by purchasing the mining right located in the Gangwon-gu Haak-gun. The defendant deceivings the plaintiff to make an investment in the mining right, and by deceiving the plaintiff from October 19, 2009 to July 2, 2010, KRW 337250,000 from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the above KRW 337250,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed against the non-committee agreement, since the plaintiff himself/herself had completed the registration of transfer of mining right under the name of the plaintiff and agreed not to raise any objection in the future with the plaintiff.

First of all, in the case of the evidence Nos. 5-2, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the part signed by the defendant, it cannot be used as evidence against the defendant. According to the evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (in the case of the family identification number, including the branch identification number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and 3, the plaintiff is currently a person under registration as to each of the mining rights listed in the separate sheet Nos. 5-3 (hereinafter the "mining rights of this case"). When the plaintiff takes over the mining land No. 5, the plaintiff assumes the obligation equivalent to KRW 20 million against C, or according to the statement No. 1 through 3 of the evidence No. 2, the mining rights of this part were extinguished on May 23, 2012 due to non-performance of development obligation.

As the name of registration is transferred, G Co., Ltd. was a company established on November 12, 2009 for the investment and development of mining rights of this case, and the plaintiff was the representative director.

Although it is recognized that he prepared a letter that he/she will not raise any objection in the future, there was an agreement between the original and the defendant on the recognition alone.