1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the investment amount.

(Seoul Central District Court 2016Kahap56173, hereinafter referred to as "principal case", and the case at the above court shall be written only by case number).

On October 16, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for provisional attachment against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim by claiming the right to claim the return of KRW 339,170,000 as an investment bond. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant received a decision on provisional attachment of claim on October 20, 2016.

(2016Kadan885, hereinafter referred to as "first provisional seizure") c.

On November 3, 2016, the Defendant applied for provisional seizure of the Plaintiff’s deposit claim by claiming the right to claim the return of KRW 100,000,000 as the investment bond. On November 8, 2016, the Defendant received a decision on provisional seizure of the claim.

(2016Kadan81664, hereinafter referred to as "second provisional seizure," d.

On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the first provisional attachment (2016Kadan813299), and on April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff approved the first provisional attachment decision within the scope of KRW 4,500,00 on the ground that “The investment contract causing monetary payment constitutes an independent transaction of a director without approval of the board of directors, which is null and void, and the unclaimed amount is merely KRW 4,500,000,” and received a decision to revoke the excess amount.

E. On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the second provisional attachment (2017Kadan804782), and on July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision to authorize the second provisional attachment order, subject to the provision of additional security, on the ground that “the said investment contract is likely to be null and void, and the existence of preserved rights is likely to be done within this context.”

F. On October 27, 2017, the court of first instance claimed that the Plaintiff was the initial amount invested, but changed the cause of the claim into the loan, on the ground that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,107,50,000 to KRW 1,50,000, and the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,103,000 to KRW 1,50,000.”

(b).