1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant have been in the relation of interest from August 2004 to November 2016.

On November 10, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 187,500,000 to the Defendant respectively, and KRW 7,000,000 on November 27, 2008.

As above, the Defendant purchased 1,564 square meters and 350 square meters prior to D in the name of Ansan-dong, Dong-si (hereinafter “instant land”) around November 208, and subsequently completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name on the instant land on December 7, 2010 due to sale as of November 29, 2010.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings, upon the defendant's recommendation, decided to invest 1/2 of the purchase price of the land of this case. Accordingly, around November 2008, the plaintiff paid the defendant KRW 1/2 of the purchase price, KRW 187,500,00 of the purchase price, and KRW 7,000 of the registration fee of registration of collection, respectively.

The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is a partnership under the Civil Act, and trust relationship was destroyed by the defendant's intimidation and deception. The defendant should pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the market price of the land of this case, which is the remaining property of the union, 1/2 of 1,00,000,000 won and delay damages.

The judgment of this court was examined, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an investment agreement and a partnership agreement on the land of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings, are the following facts and circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant while maintaining the relationship with the Defendant while returning KRW 100,000 to the Defendant around February 2, 2009, which was at risk with the Defendant, and (ii) the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant around November 2008, on the premise that the Plaintiff returned KRW 194,50,000, which was paid to the Defendant.