1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to conduct electrical device manufacturing business, electrical construction business, engineering and software development service business, etc., and its capital is 10,000,000 won (one share amount of 5,000 won, total number of issued and outstanding shares of 2,000 won) and is a company incorporated on January 10, 2014. The Defendant was the Plaintiff’s internal director from the time of establishment to December 9, 2016, and C is the Plaintiff’s representative from the time of establishment to the time of establishment of the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant and C invested KRW 5 million on January 10, 2014, and established the Plaintiff. From the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff to December 2, 2016, the Defendant and C owned 50% (1,000 shares) of the total number of outstanding shares issued by the Plaintiff.

C. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff, from the Plaintiff’s account, remitted KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the account in the name of a personal business entity operated by the Defendant to the account in the name of a director, and on the same day, transferred KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the account in the name of a “representative” to the “provisional payment”. The Plaintiff’s account book also accounts with each “director’s provisional payment” and “representative’s provisional payment.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant in the form of provisional payment; (b) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and damages for delay; and (c) on that, the Defendant merely received KRW 30 million as the dividend from the Plaintiff on June 25, 2015, and that there was no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 101 Decided July 10, 2014