1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap 1, 3, 4, and 2-4 as to the cause of the claim, Eul, the plaintiff's fraudulent act, agreed to conduct D and new and renewable energy business, etc. as a partnership business, and established the defendant on February 18, 2016, and the plaintiff decided to invest KRW 20 million in the defendant around that time, and paid KRW 16 million out of March 8, 2016, and Eul was appointed as the representative director at the time of the establishment of the defendant, and transferred and retired the shares held as the representative director at the time of the establishment of the defendant, and thereafter, Eul agreed to return the investment amount of KRW 16 million to the plaintiff as the representative of the defendant company by December 31, 2017.

(1) The court below held that the agreement with the defendant was terminated or terminated by resignation from the office of representative director as the plaintiff asserted by the plaintiff, unless there is any evidence that the agreement with the defendant was concluded on the date of the third pleading of the court of first instance, and that the confession was revoked on the date of the first pleading of the court of first instance, but there is no evidence to prove that the confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake. The above revocation is invalid). The plaintiff is that the plaintiff invested money in order to assist the defendant to establish a representative director, and therefore, the agreement with the defendant was terminated or terminated. However, the plaintiff's investment agreement

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Although the Plaintiff’s fulfillment period of the obligation to return the investment deposit has not yet arrived as of December 31, 2017, it is difficult to expect the Defendant’s voluntary performance because the Defendant asserts the existence of an agreement to return the investment deposit itself and it expresses its intention not to perform even if the due date arrives. Therefore, the Plaintiff needs to claim in advance the future claim against the Defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da37405, Sept. 3, 2004). Accordingly, the Defendant’s investment funds to the Plaintiff upon the arrival of December 31, 2017.