A. On September 10, 2004, the Plaintiff, who is the husband, was employed by the Defendant (former trade name before the change: NAM), and was stored in the Defendant for the purpose of securing the Defendant’s liability to compensate for damages caused by sales loss, etc. during the period of service in B, and paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant at the time of retirement.

B. Around September 2006, the Plaintiff received a return of KRW 25 million out of the above KRW 50 million from the Defendant.

C. B retired on February 16, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the custody deposit amount of KRW 25 million, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that he remitted to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 4 million on October 26, 2009, KRW 10 million on the 29th of the same month, KRW 10 million on the 30th of the same month, KRW 25 million on the 11th of the same year, and KRW 10 million on the 11th of the same year.

However, according to the statements in Eul 1, the defendant can be found to have remitted money to the plaintiff as above, but it is difficult to recognize that the above remitted money was appropriated for repayment of the above twenty-five million won by only the above statements in Eul 1 in light of the statements in Gap 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 25 million and the damages for delay.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.