1. Defendant C. in excess of the money that exceeds the following payment orders with respect to Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The parties' assertion

가. 원고의 주장 피고들은 원고에게 창원시 의창구 D 소재에서 ‘디스코팡팡’ 놀이기구를 운영하는 사업(이하 ‘이 사건 사업’이라 한다)에 대하여 원고가 투자한 금액 2,500만 원을 반환할 것을 약정하였고, 예비적으로 피고 B은 명의대여자로서의 책임을 지거나 부당이득반환의무가 있으므로 결국 피고들은 연대하여 2,500만 원 및 이에 대하여 약정 변제기 다음 날인 2014. 12. 25.부터 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

B. Defendant B’s assertion is not related to the instant business and the Plaintiff’s investment funds, and is merely registered as a business operator of the instant business in the name of Defendant B, and Defendant C merely made efforts to return the principal to the maximum extent possible when profits accrued from the business invested by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the claim against Defendant C, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of witness E of the court of first instance, Defendant C agreed to return the above 25 million won to the Plaintiff as a partnership business. Defendant C sold 10% of the share of the instant business to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the investment of the instant business, and Defendant C demanded the return of the investment of the instant business, and Defendant C sent a text of “I would return to the President, I would like to return to the maximum extent possible.” Thus, Defendant C agreed to return the above 25 million won to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, from March 4, 2015, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from March 4, 2015 until October 13, 2016, which is the date of the decision of this case, which is appropriate for Defendant C to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation.