2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to refund the deposit with the purport that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall pay the deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the Defendant, on April 4, 2011,” stating that “The Plaintiff entered into a sales agency agreement at C points with the content of the purchase of electronic tobacco, etc. and sell monopolys in Gangwon-do,” and the Plaintiff paid the deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. Since the contract was terminated upon termination of the contract, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to refund the deposit amount of KRW 1

(Court 2015 Ghana2188). (b)

On October 2, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to receive a refund when the contract for supply of the total sales agency is terminated, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant as a security deposit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed and appealed. The appellate court accepted part of the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 3, 201, on the ground that “(i) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant around May 3, 201, but the Defendant did not expressly state the payment details; (ii) the supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated and the Plaintiff did not appear to have any reason attributable to the Plaintiff; and ③ the difference between the amount remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the transaction period ( KRW 73,425,60) and the amount of the tax invoice ( KRW 64,069,00) issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is adjacent to KRW 10 million, which is the deposit amount under the above supply contract.” The Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on or around May 3, 2011, as long as the said supply contract was terminated, it is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff.”