1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of credit business at the time of advancement with the trade name “D”.

B. From the end of 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to operate the said loan business (hereinafter “instant loan business agreement”) and jointly run the credit business. The method was ① The Plaintiff transferred part of the principal of the loan to the Defendant’s account, and the remainder of the principal of the loan to the borrower at the Defendant’s expense. However, when the Defendant received the principal and interest from the borrower, the Plaintiff transferred the principal and interest calculated at the rate of the withdrawal of the principal of the loan to the Plaintiff’s account as the Plaintiff’s wife.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the instant partnership agreement under the agreement around November 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Dong business of this case is not a form in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant continue to operate a credit business jointly and jointly, and each of its investments is combined with the partnership property, but an individual investment contract that ends upon the collection of the loan is accumulated at the time of request for the loan. Therefore, it does not constitute a partnership agreement under the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the following money with the settlement money for the investment or loan. The Plaintiff asserted that the Dong business contract of this case is a partnership agreement at the first instance court on the premise that it is the partnership agreement, but the Plaintiff does not clearly state clearly what is the accurate source of claim even if it asserts otherwise at the trial. (2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s account from November 25, 2005 to May 30, 2012 is the Defendant’s account, but the Plaintiff asserted that “5,409,815,000 won” from the preparatory document on June 12, 2017 to the attached documents.