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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 30,000,00 from the Plaintiff to the corporate bank passbook in the name of the Defendant.

B. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) incorporated the Plaintiff as an internal director; and (b) incorporated the Defendant as the representative director C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”); and (c) allocated 30,000 shares of the Nonparty Company, which constitute 500 shares per share, to the Plaintiff.

C. After January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff resigned from the intra-company director of the non-party company.

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

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2014, and sought the return thereof from the Defendant.

The plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable on the ground that the statement of Gap evidence No. 1 alone is sufficient to recognize that the above KRW 30,000,000 is the borrowed money, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Preliminary claim (stock purchase price) If the Plaintiff is an investment amount of KRW 30,000,000 against the non-party company as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant acquired shares of the non-party company (based on KRW 500,000 per share) equivalent to the above investment amount and distributed it to the Plaintiff by acquiring only 30,000 shares of the non-party company (based on KRW 50,000 per share) and allocating it to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff allocated KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff because it is necessary to keep the remainder of KRW 15,00,000, or that the Defendant holds a majority of shares for the stable operation of the non-party company. The Defendant purchased the remainder of KRW 30,000 from the Plaintiff and then did not pay KRW 15,00,000 for purchase price.

Therefore, it argues that there is a duty to pay 15,000,000 won of custody or stock price.

The defendant's evidence presented to this court alone is the plaintiff's.