A. C (hereinafter “instant company”) is a corporation incorporated on November 11, 2015 for the purpose of developing and distributing game software; and the Defendant is a company director of the instant company from August 2, 2016 to January 20, 2017, who was the representative director of the instant company.

B. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with the instant company (hereinafter “instant investment contract”) and around that time paid KRW 280,000,000 to the instant company.

According to the investment contract of this case, the company of this case, subject to the Plaintiff’s participation in business management, had the Plaintiff pay to the Plaintiff the investment amount of KRW 280,000,000 as well as an annual agreement of 20% per annum within one year after receiving the investment money. The Defendant signed and sealed the contract as “interested party” of the company of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant investment contract, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the investment and agreed interest to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder agreed upon with the remainder of the amount of 309,989,041 won (i.e., an investment amount of 280,000,000 won and damages for delay, totaling 29,989,041 won) and damages for delay of 280,000,000 won.

B. At the time of the instant investment contract, the Defendant did not conclude an agreement with the content that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the investment amount of the instant company.

Even if it is not so, the plaintiff's claim is not permissible because it is an abuse of right in light of the plaintiff's behavior against the company of this case.

3. Determination as to the cause of claim, etc.

A. The content of the text and text in a case where a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties to the 1-related legal doctrine regarding the cause of the claim arises and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document becomes an