1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts (no dispute exists);

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the Defendant is a person who leases real estate under the trade name “D”.

The plaintiff was aware of the defendant's friendship E and the defendant.

B. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant on July 14, 2008, respectively, and KRW 50,000,00 on March 30, 201, respectively.

(1)(1) or (2) in the order of hereinafter referred to as "transfer".

2. Summary of the Parties’ Claims

A. The Plaintiff leased 18,909,090 won transferred once to the Defendant as the repair cost of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “G building”) or the interest payment cost of the loan secured thereon, which is owned by the Defendant, to the Defendant, and KRW 50,000,000 won transferred once to the Defendant as the rebuilding cost of G building, respectively, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the above loan.

B. The Plaintiff did not lend the above money to the Defendant, in the course of issuing a false tax invoice to the Defendant and returning the amount excluding the value-added tax to the Defendant after receiving the construction cost in form from the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the sum of KRW 68,909,09,09, and the amount received in connection with the issuance of a false tax invoice as the Defendant’s assertion, in light of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 19, 20, 28-30, and Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 as loans and the entire purport of the argument Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9,

We do not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

① On June 20, 2008, C issued a tax invoice of KRW 18,909,090 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant, and the Defendant transferred KRW 20,800,000 to C account on July 14, 2008.

On the same day C remitted 18,909,090 won to the Plaintiff’s account, and the Plaintiff returned the said money to the Defendant account again.

(1) above.