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. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) The Plaintiff, on June and July 2014, agreed with Nonparty C to jointly operate the riding track business (hereinafter “instant business”).

() The Defendant lent KRW 13.5 million to the Plaintiff on the basis that it is required to make an investment, with the loan of KRW 13.5 million. However, the Defendant was obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 8.5 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s instant business was jointly operated between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the third party. The Plaintiff’s KRW 13.5 million paid by the Plaintiff is not a loan but a loan.

However, the instant project returned to a failure, and the agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C three parties agreed that the Defendant shall be liable for KRW 5 million out of the Plaintiff’s investment deposit of KRW 13.5 million. On October 13, 2014, KRW 2.1 million out of the above KRW 5.5 million was offset against the Defendant’s loan claim against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s obligation was entirely extinguished by paying the remainder of KRW 2.9 million.

B. First of all, determination on the nature of the money remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 13.5 million remitted to the Defendant has the nature of the loan, and the Defendant asserts that the said amount was only the Plaintiff’s joint proprietor of the instant business, and therefore, we examine the nature of the said amount.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 evidence, the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 13.5 million in the Defendant’s account, KRW 1.5 million on June 13, 2014, KRW 6.5 million on June 18, 2014, KRW 200,000 on June 20, 2014, and KRW 13.5 million on July 30, 2014 is recognized, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that the fact of recognition alone alone lent KRW 13.5 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 4, No. 1, No. 3, 4, and 5, Plaintiff, Defendant, and C.