1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff and the defendant operated Lestop (hereinafter "the restaurant of this case") with the trade name "C" as a partnership, and the plaintiff decided to withdraw from the partnership relation.

The Defendant agreed to return KRW 10 million invested by the Plaintiff at the instant restaurant and paid KRW 4 million among them.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining 6 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant did not operate the restaurant of this case, and that the plaintiff paid 10 million won to the defendant to the defendant as educational expenses, and that the plaintiff paid 10 million won to the defendant for the operation of the restaurant, etc. is not an investment, and thus, it does not have a duty to return it.

2. The following facts may be acknowledged when there is no dispute between the parties, or when Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the result of an order issued by the court of first instance to submit taxation information to the head of the same tax office at the same time as the court of first instance to the witness D to the whole purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff, around February 2014, shall operate the cafeteria with the Defendant. The Plaintiff, while the Defendant invested KRW 10 million, and operated the cafeteria in this case.

B. At the time of the first business registration of the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were registered as joint business operators, and thereafter changed to the Defendant’s sole name.

C. On September 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw from the partnership relationship with the Defendant due to the business depression of the instant restaurant, and the Defendant agreed to return KRW 10 million invested by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff during the settlement process.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million on December 18, 2015, and KRW 4 million on January 27, 2016.

3. The Defendant asserts that the amount paid by the Plaintiff is merely the name of the educational expenses, but it can be seen by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the grounds for recognition as seen earlier.