1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part extended at the trial) and the incidental appeal are all filed.

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was established on April 6, 2006 for the purpose of advertising advertising agency and service business.

B. On February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 120 million from the Korea Saemaul Bank and disbursed it as the operating fund of the instant company.

C. From the time of the incorporation of the instant company to March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director of the instant company, and from March 30, 2012 to March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was registered as the internal director of the instant company. The Defendant was registered as the internal director of the instant company from the time of its incorporation to March 30, 2012.

The promoters of the instant company are the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s wife, and 50% of the shares issued by the said company was registered in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife, and the remaining 50% was registered in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant decided to establish the company of this case by investing KRW 60 million in each of the above amounts. At the time, the defendant was unable to raise the above amount, with a loan of KRW 120 million to the defendant, including the part to be borne by the defendant. Since the plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to the defendant, the defendant must return the borrowed amount to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant jointly invested KRW 120 million in the partnership to establish the company, not in a partnership relationship with the defendant, but in the company of this case established independently by the plaintiff, the defendant was employed as an employee, and there is no ground for the defendant to jointly bear the investment funds for the establishment of the company of this case, and therefore, there is no fact that the defendant borrowed KRW 60 million from the plaintiff to pay the above investment funds. Therefore, the plaintiff'

3. We examine the judgment.