1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. The first instance court;

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is the same as “1. Basic Facts” of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd”) in Chapter 2.

(C) Codefendant C Codefendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in the first instance trial.

(ii) part of Defendant B’s part of Defendant B’s 2nd 2nd 2nd 13rd 13rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 14,15,16,17,18nd 3rd 1,4,6, and7nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd

(d) the last 2nd e.g., the part of the Civil Procedure Act in relation to d. related civil action (hereinafter referred to as "first e.g. case").

(ii)as described in the action for the return of KRW 102,987,591 out of the second part of the second part of the appeal No. 3,000,000 to the action for the return of KRW 102,987,591 after deducting the amount of redemption and retirement allowances;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to jointly operate the Defendant and D Limited Liability Company located in China (hereinafter “China”) with the Defendant and to share 50% of its profits to receive distribution of 50% of its profits.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant is obligated to pay profits to the Plaintiff according to the above agreement even if the net income of C was not generated and the shareholder was not paid, since the distribution of profits pursuant to the above agreement was not based on the premise that the net income of C was generated on the financial statement and the shareholder’s distribution was not conducted. However, in lieu of the above distribution of profits, the Defendant promised to offset the Plaintiff’s debt of the instant loan to the Plaintiff with the claim against C (half) by the claim against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s distribution of profits to be paid to the Plaintiff was determined as KRW 123 million equivalent to the amount of the instant loan. Therefore, the Defendant is equivalent