1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 17 million to the Defendant’s account from August 2, 2013 to August 14, 2013.

B. The Defendant: (a) around the time when the Plaintiff transferred the instant money as above, performed C Formation Corporation (hereinafter “instant Corporation”); and (b) performed duties for up to seven days at the site of the instant construction work.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant as above and lent KRW 17 million to the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant agreed to give KRW 3 million monthly wage at the construction site of this case, and the Plaintiff worked at the construction site of this case from August 2, 2013 to November 2, 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 17 million and KRW 9 million, including the amount of KRW 26 million and the amount of KRW 9 million, and the damages for delay.

B. Money transferred to the Defendant by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is not a loan, but an investment money.

In addition, the defendant did not agree that the plaintiff would give wages when working at the construction site of this case, and the plaintiff did not work in writing at the construction site of this case, but did not work.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant and lent it to the Defendant as above is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the purport of the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff decided to operate the instant construction project with the Defendant, and transferred the instant construction project to the Defendant under the name of its investment deposit, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the same as the instant construction project, and if they make profits after the completion of the construction project, they can only be acknowledged that the Defendant agreed to pay dividends to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan is without merit.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff appeared to be seven days at the instant site.