보증금반환
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from March 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
1. The fact of recognition that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on November 1, 2013 for a period of one year from January 1, 2014; the deposit is KRW 200 million; and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to take charge of beauty, dice, and so forth on a wedding proceeding in the Defendant’s operation (hereinafter “instant contract”); and the fact that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 150 million on January 21, 2015 due to the return of the deposit upon the termination of the said contract does not conflict between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. When concluding the instant business contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 200 million was set at KRW 200 million, and the Plaintiff’s mother entered into a contract with the Defendant to take charge of the towing photographs carried out in the Defendant on January 3, 2012, and agreed that KRW 150 million as well as KRW 40 million paid by the Plaintiff’s mother to take charge of the said photographing, and that KRW 50 million as well as KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was returned to E, who had taken the photograph before the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, will substitute
Since the instant business contract terminated on December 31, 2014 due to the expiration of the contract term, the Defendant shall return the deposit amount of KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.
However, the defendant returned the above deposit amount of KRW 150 million to the plaintiff, and the remaining KRW 50 million is not returned to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining deposit amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.
B. It was true that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a business contract with the content as alleged by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff paid only KRW 150 million to the Defendant as security deposit.
Therefore, since the defendant returned the full amount of deposit received from the plaintiff, there is no reason for the plaintiff's claim of this case.
3. Determination