1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant on October 23, 2002, and the fact that the Defendant remitted KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2004 is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 23, 2002, the Plaintiff, which caused the primary claim, lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on October 23, 2002, and agreed to pay KRW 15 million interest equivalent to KRW 50 million and KRW 30% of the principal after about six months.

However, on June 10, 2004, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 10 million, and the said money was partly appropriated for interest KRW 15 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 50 million and the unpaid interest of KRW 55 million and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 50 million among them.

B. The Plaintiff, as the conjunctive cause of the preliminary claim, jointly purchased the land located D in the Gu Government-si, and newly built and sold a commercial building on that land, thereby investing KRW 50 million in the business through the Defendant.

The above commercial building was completed on or around September 2003.

On the other hand, when the plaintiff makes an investment of KRW 50 million, the defendant agreed to pay profits equivalent to 30% of the principal and principal when the plaintiff makes an investment, and there was no agreement or explanation that the plaintiff should share the damages.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 50 million and the unpaid amount of KRW 55 million and delay damages for the principal amount of KRW 50 million among them.

3. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that money has been received between the parties to the judgment, the reason that the plaintiff received money is the consumption lease, and the defendant is the burden of proving that it was received due to the consumption lease.

(Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). However, each of the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 1 and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial are as follows.