1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s 15% per annum from March 22, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and the following.

1. Around May 2017, the fact of recognition that the Plaintiff received a proposal from the Defendant to allocate profits when investing in the general restaurant business of “C” operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant main restaurant”), and paid a total of KRW 45 million (hereinafter “instant investment”) to the Defendant six times from May 9, 2017 to August 8, 2017.

② In addition to the Plaintiff, Nonparty D (A) and E (B) invested KRW 53 million in the main business of the instant case.

③ If the Defendant did not properly pay the proceeds promised, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the contribution on March 17, 2017. However, the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request while returning the instant main points upon the disposition.

[Ground of appeal] Facts without any dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 6, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Although it is not clear that a contract, etc. to confirm the specific contents of the instant investment agreement has not been prepared, it is reasonable to view that investors including the Plaintiff did not participate in the business and operated the main points of the instant case by Defendant Mixedly, the instant investment relationship is an undisclosed association under Article 78 of the Commercial Act. Therefore, if the amount of investment to be returned remains after deducting losses and deducting losses (Article 85 of the Commercial Act). The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as mentioned above. In other words, the instant main investors including the Plaintiff did not participate in the business and operated the Defendant Mixedly. The Defendant appears to have failed to disclose to the Plaintiff the revenue and expenditure of the instant main business or the current status of residual assets, etc., and the instant main investors, including the Plaintiff, were unable to return the main points of the instant case due to the economic depression without being absent on the fixed date, and there were no other material related to the important issues such as whether they were returned.