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

2. Claim for costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a business agreement with the purport that they shall invest KRW 1.5 billion in each of the KRW 1.5 billion, purchase the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 741.2m2m2m2, and then newly construct apartment units on the site and divide the sales proceeds after deducting the cost into 50% (hereinafter “instant business agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) purchased the said site by investing funds in accordance with the instant business agreement; (b) commenced and completed the construction of an apartment on or around June 201, 201; and (c) sold all the said apartment units to 19 households (hereinafter “instant construction”; and (b) total sales revenue is KRW 5,619,50,000.

C. On October 20, 2012, the Defendant prepared the disbursement details of the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant disbursement details”) and examined them together with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff raised an objection to the part of the said disbursement details.

The total expenditure amount according to the instant expenditure is KRW 4,961,188,910. The expenditure amount was indicated as KRW 75 million as sales agency fee to D, and KRW 1,00,000 as of March 18, 201, KRW 20 million as of July 19, 201, and KRW 50,000 as on-site operation fee to D.

However, the sales agency fee actually paid to D is KRW 70 million, and the defendant sold home appliances for display, which were in the model lower on October 2012, 2012, to the number of buyers at KRW 202,000,000 and received the price, but did not enter them as revenue.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant sold to ASEAN the instant apartment unit KRW 501 (354 million) more than the target selling price (354 million) of the instant apartment unit KRW 501,00,000 to ASEAN, and the instant apartment unit KRW 603 (220 million) more than the target selling price (220 million) of the instant apartment unit KRW 20 million, respectively.

F. By November 12, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 341 million to the Plaintiff by November 12, 2012 under the name of shares under the instant business agreement.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.