1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On August 26, 2012, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, made an investment of KRW 200 million in a G company, a Australia company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), and entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant who represented the Nonparty Company as a director of the Nonparty Company, as follows:

1. The Plaintiff paid 200 million won to the non-party company and obtained ownership of 6% of its equity interest.

2. On September 1, 2013, the Plaintiff may choose among the following contract options.

옵션1 - 계약 만기시 원고는 원금과 원금의 25%를 상환받는다(원금 2억 원과 원금의 25%인 5,000만 원을 합한 총 2억 5,000만 원). 옵션2 - 계약 만기시 원고는 다음 상환 스케쥴에 따라 투자기간 연장이 가능하다.

An investment shall be repaid twice in a lump sum.

On September 1, 2013, KRW 100 million has been repaid and KRW 100 million has been repaid on September 1, 2014.

In addition, 6% of the profits of the non-party company shall be paid every year by the ownership of the shares of the non-party company owned by the plaintiff.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted investment KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s account.

Around August 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she selected options 1, which is prior to the maturity of the instant contract, and the Defendant remitted KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff from February 11, 2014 to the 18th day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, but the plaintiff asserts that the defendant has a duty to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 71,369,863, calculated by the ratio of 25% per annum from September 7, 2012 to February 11, 2014, according to the non-authorized representative's responsibility under Article 135(1) of the Civil Act.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 3 and 4 (including additional numbers), the defendant, as a director of the non-party company, shall have the right to enter into the contract of this case as a director of the non-party company.