1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment

The plaintiff's assertion of the judgment party as to the claim against the defendant C would allow the defendant C to occupy the F department store in the name of the plaintiff corporation. In the meantime, the defendant C asked J to the effect that the purchase of necessary goods and the loan of operating funds would be made, and the defendant C and B who operated the business in partnership with the defendant C agreed to pay the funds together.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff lent the said money to Defendant B’s account from February 28, 2013 to July 18, 2013, by remitting total of KRW 270,100,000.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the above loans to the Plaintiff.

Defendant C’s assertion was established by J and Fisheries Partnership L (hereinafter “L”) and it was difficult to set up a plan to operate a store together with the F department stores. However, Defendant C agreed to use the current G trade name as it was difficult to immediately store.

The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 270,100,00 to Defendant B’s account is not a loan under the foregoing business agreement.

Judgment

From February 28, 2013 to Defendant B’s account

7. The fact that a total of KRW 270,100,000 has been transferred on nine occasions until 18.0 does not conflict between the parties.

As to the plaintiff's assertion that he lent the above money to the defendants, in this case, the defendant C's above money is a kind of investment fund according to the business agreement, first of all, the character of the above money should be examined, and this is examined below.

The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established, as the evidence Nos. 1-1 (each letter, a letter, because there is no dispute that the following imprints of L trade name are based on L corporation seals. The plaintiff asserts that this document was forged, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it), Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-2, and 2.