1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. The facts below the basis of facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, and 6 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

C is the defendant's children.

B. In relation to the operation of the restaurant located in Daegu Metropolitan City (mutual name: D; hereinafter “instant restaurant”), three copies of the contract in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the parties (hereinafter “instant contract”) around 2007 and 2008 were written.

Each of the above contracts is written by the Plaintiff as an investor, the Defendant’s representative (or a restaurant operator), and C as a surety, and the Defendant’s seal is affixed on each of the Defendant’s names.

In each of the above contracts, the Plaintiff invested the sum of KRW 45 million in the instant restaurant operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant manages the overall operation of the restaurant and pays a certain amount of profits from the monthly sales to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is not participating in the Defendant’s restaurant management.

Among the above contracts, the contract dated 16, 2008 states that the tax incurred in relation to the operation of the restaurant in this case is liable to the defendant.

C. From November 5, 2007 to September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff registered as joint operators of the instant restaurant. D.

The value-added tax was imposed on the Plaintiff regarding the operation of the instant restaurant from March 2009 to September 2010, and the Plaintiff paid the sum of KRW 10,017,240 on January 16, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with the Defendant, and invested operating funds in the instant restaurant operated by the Defendant.

According to the above investment contract, all taxes, public charges, etc. incurred in relation to the operation of the restaurant of this case shall be borne by the defendant.

However, the Plaintiff imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was registered as a joint operator of the instant restaurant, and paid it on behalf of the Defendant.