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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff received money from a company bank and remitted 70 million won to the Defendant. The date of payment, amount, and entry in the details of passbook transactions are KRW 5 million (EPC bank agreement) on August 12, 2013, KRW 10 million on September 2, 2013, KRW 40 million on September 4, 2013 (PC bank investment), and KRW 15 million on September 16, 2013 (PC bank investment in full).

B. On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s representative D and the Defendant: (a) invested each of 70 million won (D) and 130 million won (Defendant) to jointly operate the PC; and (b) distributed the profits in proportion to 35% (D) and 65% (Defendant); (c) the interest on D investments to be paid by the Defendant until D repaid the principal amount.

C. Meanwhile, in the course of settlement following the completion of the aforementioned PC program, the Plaintiff Company paid 70 million won to the Plaintiff Company during the period from August 12, 2013 to September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff Company requested payment of the settlement amount.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the Enterprise Bank around August 2013 to the Defendant as the CPC opening business loan, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,787,344, such as the loan and the substitute interest, to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that even if the defendant did not lend the above money to the defendant, and even if he lent the above money to the partnership under the partnership agreement between D and the defendant, the defendant, a business operator of the partnership, has the obligation to repay the union's

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant.

Rather, in light of the timing of payment of money, the details of payment, and the attitude of the Plaintiff Company in the course of settling the agreement on the same trade, the Plaintiff is instead of the amount of contribution that D has to pay according to the agreement on the same trade.