1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Recognizing that the court’s reasoning concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that written by the second instance judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, "150 million won" was added to "150 million won" as "150 million won" (hereinafter "the amount of this case").

B. Once the second judgment of the first instance is rendered, the first to third to third is dismissed as follows.

【Plaintiff-Appellant, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) as Defendant B’s partner H and partnership business

(2) On June 27, 2016, Defendant B established a duty-free shop business and requested Defendant B to provide business funds. Accordingly, Defendant B lent or invested to the Plaintiff and H by paying KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director on the document. Thereafter, on November 30, 2017 and December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 50 million out of the above money, and returned the instant amount to D on December 31, 2017, and returned the instant amount to D in lieu of paying the remainder of the instant real estate. Accordingly, the instant amount was not the money borrowed by Defendant B.

C. On No. 31 of the first instance judgment, the evidence No. 11 of the first instance judgment is dismissed with "31, 34 of the evidence", and on No. 3 through No. 5 of the first instance judgment, the third through No. 5 of the first instance judgment shall be dismissed with the following parts.

【B The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B did not enter into an agreement on interest or maturity with the repayment of money until January 10, 2018. However, there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff urged Defendant B to pay the instant amount even from January 9, 2018, which was the time of the said repayment, or from January 16, 2018, until January 16, 2018 (Defendant B called to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2018).