1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the primary claim for return of investment amount

A. The purport of the assertion is that, around April 2003, the Plaintiff, upon consultation with the Defendant, was to receive KRW 200 million as the division of property from the Defendant. On May 2004, the Plaintiff, instead of receiving KRW 200 million as the division of property from the Defendant, deemed that the Defendant invested in purchasing the land located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, which is equivalent to KRW 400 million, and the Defendant agreed to return the amount equivalent to KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff at an appropriate time thereafter.

B. Considering the overall purport of each statement and argument in the records and evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 3 (including those with a provisional number), the plaintiff and the defendant married around 1985 and completed a report of divorce on April 25, 2003, and the defendant completed each registration of transfer of ownership with respect to 1,320 square meters in the name of the defendant on January 17, 2005, and 195 square meters in the name of the defendant, it is recognized that each of the above facts of recognition and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 are insufficient to recognize that an agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the return of investment amounts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's primary argument of the plaintiff is not reasonable without any need to further examine the remaining points.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the claim asserts that, in accordance with the division of property agreement around April 2003, the Plaintiff at the time of divorce, even if the agreement on return of the above investment amount was not accepted as preliminary, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining KRW 185,00,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 15,000,000, which was already received by the Plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the division of property was concluded, as otherwise alleged in the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is a confession, but the entire purport of the document submitted by the Defendant is.