1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was appointed as an internal director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) mainly for the purpose of carrying out construction design and construction business.

B. On February 28, 2013, the Defendant assumed office as an internal director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) for the purpose of the construction materials and small products wholesale business.

C. The following money was transferred from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account (Account Number: F) to the Defendant’s bank account:

(hereinafter referred to as “the amount of remittance of this case”). The amount (won) No. 10,00,000 G Bank H 2, April 1, 2015, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the amount of remittance of this case”) No. 10,000,000 International Cooperatives J 3, April 1, 2015, J 4, 10,000 International Cooperatives J 4, April 10, 2015, 10, 000 International Cooperatives J 5, 10,000,000, 00,000,000, 00,000, 6,000,000, 00, 6,000, 19, 6,000, 19, 10,000, 10, 100, 10,000, 7, 205, 10,5, 2015,

2. Judgment on the main argument

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant loaned money to the Plaintiff via E’s intra-company director L.

The Plaintiff, a director of D’s intra-company, received from E, could not actually refuse the Defendant’s request as an intra-company director, and thus, lent money to the Defendant via the instant remittance amount.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 89,615,00,000, excluding KRW 10,000,000 paid by the defendant, out of the remittance amount of this case.

B. The evidence Nos. 11 and 17 and L testimony at the court of first instance, which correspond to the fact that the amount of remittance of this case is a loan, are likely to believe the following circumstances, considering the overall purport of the statement and pleading Nos. 6, 12, 13, and 14 (including the serial number). The remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, and it is otherwise acknowledged.