The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the selective claim added by this court are dismissed, respectively.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the determination of the Plaintiff’s loan claims, and thus, is used by the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s loan claim

A. 1) At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, the Plaintiff lent KRW 130 million to the Defendant as operating funds, such as deposit for lease, goods, and expenses for purchasing machinery. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 130 million and damages for delay. 2) The Defendant merely received the said KRW 130 million investment pursuant to the business partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and C, and did not borrow the said money from the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent money even if the amount of money for judgment is recognized shall be proved by the Plaintiff that the cause of receiving money was based on the loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the Plaintiff spent KRW 130 million in the course of the establishment of the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, i.e., the plaintiff paid KRW 130 million to the defendant company after entering into a trade agreement with C on July 31, 2017, with the purport of investing KRW 130 million in the defendant company: