1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,88,970 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. Around 2008, the Plaintiff invested KRW 25,000,000 in a company called C (hereinafter “instant company”) at the Defendant’s recommendation.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the principal invested by the Plaintiff was KRW 21,60,000 and partly denied the above facts. However, in full view of the entries and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s principal of the investment may be recognized as constituting 25,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff’s principal of the investment may not be trusted as stated in the evidence No. 3. Unlike the Defendant’s horses, the Plaintiff was paid dividends from November 24, 2008 to December 4, 2008, and did not receive dividends more than 2,11,030,030, after receiving the total sum of KRW 2,11,030 from the instant company over 12 occasions.

On November 22, 2008, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder (hereinafter “instant agreement”) of KRW 25,000,000, which is the Plaintiff’s principal of investment, excluding dividends paid by the Plaintiff from the instant company (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,88,970 won remaining after subtracting the total of KRW 2,111,030 which the plaintiff received as dividends from the company of this case from the total of KRW 25,00,00 of the principal invested by the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of this case, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff directly visited the company of this case to hear the business explanation of the representative director of the company, received education from the person in charge of education, and then directly decided to make an investment. The Defendant made an investment recommendation to the Plaintiff, and only delivered the investment amount to the Defendant to the instant company.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should be liable to the instant company for the failure to pay dividends from the investment, and the Defendant’s investment principal is the Plaintiff.