1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 25, 2004, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to C, the actual owner of the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff, for the purchase price of D District E and F located in Busan District E and F.

However, the actual amount is, however, lent to the defendant as a fund necessary for the compartmentalization and rearrangement project of the D District, not the purchase price.

B. On August 2, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with C to purchase G 220 million won in land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for housing land and H 150 million won in each purchase price, and paid KRW 310 million in each purchase price.

However, the actual amount is not the purchase price, but C's loan to the defendant as the construction fund of land secured by development outlay.

C. The plaintiff is the defendant

(a).

Of the total sum of KRW 610,000,000 ( KRW 310,000,000) as stated in the paragraph, the Plaintiff claims for the payment of KRW 450,000,000 and damages for delay, excluding KRW 160,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff has executive titles based on the final and conclusive judgment, excluding KRW 1

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant as alleged above, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings, are as follows, namely, ① there is no document of disposal, such as a loan certificate, which can prove the conclusion of a loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the Plaintiff only holds a loan certificate prepared by C and I). ② The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C, I (the Busan District Court 2013Gahap3933), and the Defendant (the Busan District Court dong Branch Branch 2009Gahap3431), and received each winning judgment. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff asserted the amount paid to C, etc. based on the facts identical to the instant case as the sales price, not the loan.