The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court cited the first instance judgment, and determined that a money trust contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the same content as the text of the instant contract.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, as alleged by the Plaintiff, accepted the first instance judgment, and determined that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to compensate for losses arising in connection with the instant monetary trust contract was null and void as it violates social order.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court, citing the first instance judgment, determined that it was insufficient to recognize that C had obtained KRW 500 million from the Plaintiff and received KRW 500 million.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, violates the suitability principle and duty of explanation by the Defendant.