A. From around 2012, the Defendant, while running a motor vehicle maintenance business with the trade name “D” in Kimpo-si, changed the place of business to “F” in around 2015, while moving to Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

B. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to divide profits and losses into 50:50 by jointly investing in a motor vehicle maintenance business (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 100 million to the Defendant, including KRW 50 million on July 24, 2015 and KRW 50 million on August 20, 2015, in accordance with the said business agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that the plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the defendant under the name of investment by deception or mistake of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff must cancel the investment contract and seek the return of money.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant did not perform its obligation under the investment contract with the Plaintiff, and thus the Plaintiff terminates the investment contract and claims the return of KRW 100 million.

B. The defendant alleged that he did not deceiving the plaintiff, but did not perform his obligations under the contract of the same trade.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6 of this Court, the fact-finding of the modern marine fire insurance company(s) of this court, as a result of witness G’s testimony, the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement by deeming that the Defendant’s operating company is a designated maintenance company of Hyundai Marine Automobile Damage Evaluation Co., Ltd. (the company dealing with the repair of vehicles at an insured incident liability of the current marine fire insurance company and Hyundai Liber Co., Ltd.), and that there is no problem in actual sales or asset soundness. At the time, the Defendant had already concluded a partnership agreement by deeming that it is possible for the Defendant’s operating company to secure customers above a certain level and that there is no problem in actual sales or asset soundness.