1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was established on January 29, 2014 for the purpose of automobile repair, import automobiles, and parts sales business, and the private business chain D (D; hereinafter “D”) became a legal entity.

B. The Plaintiff, upon having become aware of the F through the introduction of E, received used cars from F in the instant company’s business, namely, imported and repaired used cars from a foreign country, and sought an explanation of investment in the sales business. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the instant company to invest KRW 150 million in the instant company (hereinafter “instant investment contract”). Under the instant investment contract, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 150 million in the G Bank account in the Defendant’s name, a business account of the instant company, three times from the same date until March 27, 2014 pursuant to the instant investment contract.

C. However, there was a dispute between the instant company and the Plaintiff regarding the instant investment contract, and around March 2017, the instant company filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff to the effect that the Daejeon District Court confirmed that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to refund investment worth KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff of the instant company based on the instant investment contract,” and that “the Plaintiff seek reimbursement of KRW 75 million for the reason that the Plaintiff violated the instant investment contract.”

On November 30, 2017, the above court held that "the company of this case is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 139,380,593 won as a result of the repayment of the obligation to return the investment deposit pursuant to the investment contract of this case and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from March 8, 2017 to the date of full payment," and determined that "the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated the investment contract of this case" and therefore, the part of the judgment of this case in favor of the company of this case is the case between the company of this case and the plaintiff.