1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

1. Basic facts and

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court regarding the cause of the claim is as stated in the first instance judgment, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff did not reverse or terminate the agreement on the payment of benefits, on the ground that the Plaintiff had an understanding of the payment of benefits, such as that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection against the payment of benefits while consulting the Defendant with respect to the management of the company.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff understood the unpaid benefits, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff may not make an investment in excess of KRW 30 million, unlike the agreement in this case, and that the Plaintiff’s investment in excess of KRW 270 million is F. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the amount of the agreed investment cannot be refunded in full to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence 6-1 and 2’s written arguments, the fact that 10 million won paid to Eul Co., Ltd. on March 8, 2013, 150 million won paid to Co-defendant C on March 13, 2013, and 20 million won paid on March 25, 2013, all of which were remitted from F’s account is recognized.

However, the parties to the agreement of this case are the plaintiffs, and as long as the plaintiff remitted the investment money through his own account pursuant to the agreement of this case, the investors are the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. The Defendant asserted the return of stocks or deduction of the value of stocks was terminated the agreement of this case.

Even if the plaintiff acquired shares equivalent to KRW 100 million from E, he/she asserts that the above shares should be returned to the defendant, or that KRW 100 million should be deducted from the return of investment in KRW 300 million.

However, F-F.