1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,00 to the account in the name of D designated by C (the Plaintiff asserted that C is the actual manager of the Defendant Company). On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,00,000 to F designated by C under the Plaintiff’s name E.

B. B (former name prior to the change of the Defendant Company; hereinafter “B”) is the same as August 20, 2013.

9. On October 15 of the same year, and November 4 of the same year, the Plaintiff paid the benefits, and the Defendant Company remitted KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2013.

C. On July 16, 2014, Nonparty C agreed with the Plaintiff as follows, and Nonparty C’s resident registration number and affixed a seal thereto.

Of the amount of KRW 35,00,000 invested by the Plaintiff in the Defendant Company, C promises to pay to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2014, and at the same time C will not raise any objection against any act of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legality of the Defendant’s appeal for the completion of the appeal

A. At the time of filing a lawsuit, the first instance court served documents related to the case to the "Seong-gu K and the second floor," which was the domicile of the non-party J (the place of service entered in the complaint) at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. However, even though the above J resigned and the director was unable to serve the notice of the date of pleading during the lawsuit, it served the original copy of the judgment once after concluding the case without any particular order of correction of address, and served the original copy of the judgment to serve by public notice for reasons of unknown directors.

However, the address of the above J is different from that of the defendant company, and the court of first instance, at the time when it became impossible to serve the defendant company in the course of the lawsuit due to the unknown director's failure to serve the defendant company, it was confirmed by the registry of corporate registry of the Si; and thus, the defendant company did not have any problem upon being served