1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant is from September 7, 2017 to KRW 5,8510,00 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a trade agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, who purchased and cultivated a double wave, to sell it and settle profits (hereinafter “instant trade agreement”).

B. On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted 60 million won to the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant used the said money as the purchase price for both derivatives.

C. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a document stating “Intermediate settlement and total accounts” (hereinafter “instant settlement document”) with the Defendant, and at the time, the Defendant did not raise any objection to the entries of the said document.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 1-1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated at the beginning of 2014.

At the time, the defendant borrowed money separately from the partnership agreement, and the plaintiff lent 60 million won to the defendant on January 23, 2014.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 60 million.

Even if the above money is not recognized as a loan, it is reasonable to regard the entry in the settlement statement of this case as an agreement on the settlement amount according to the business relationship.

However, after the preparation of the instant settlement statement, the Plaintiff paid 1.5 million won for warehouse expenses to C in addition to 1.5 million won, but the Defendant paid 40 million won among them, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay 60 million won for the remainder.

B. The fact that the plaintiff remitted the judgment on the primary claim to the defendant is recognized in Section 1.b. of the judgment, but further, considering whether the contract for a loan for consumption with the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded separately from the contract for the same business of this case, the statement in Section 6, which seems to correspond to the plaintiff's argument, stated the plaintiff's assertion.