A. On August 17, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the deposit of KRW 35 million with respect to D Apartment 101 Dong 201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 27,00,000 to the Defendant, KRW 27,00,000 to the Defendant’s account, KRW 27,000,000, and KRW 18.2,00,000 on September 18, 2013, KRW 200, and KRW 4.6,000 on October 4, 2013, and KRW 3,000 on October 4, 2014, to the Defendant’s account.

C. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 27,000,000 on September 4, 2013, which was remitted from the Plaintiff, to each C as a lease deposit.

On the other hand, on August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract to deposit all the interior works of the instant apartment with the payment of construction cost of KRW 15 million, the construction period from September 1, 2013 to September 6, 2013, and the ordering person immediately upon completion of the construction work of the contractor.

E. On September 17, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 20,000,00 to the Plaintiff’s deposit account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the fact-finding results to the president of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The claim of the parties refers to the situation in which the Plaintiff 1’s claim was made by the Defendant around August 2013, and the conditions are good, and thus, the Plaintiff would have to enter into a contract urgently. The Plaintiff lent KRW 32,00,000 to the Defendant’s deposit account for the apartment of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff would have to receive the loan from the loan from the loan to the loan from the loan from the loan to the loan from the loan from the loan to the loan from the loan to the Defendant. The amount of the loan is less than the expected amount, and the amount of the loan is less than KRW 20,000,000, and

On September 18, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 2,00,000 to the Defendant. In other words, on September 18, 2013, the Defendant continued to enter the Plaintiff in addition to KRW 9,00,000,000, and on the other hand, the remainder cannot be refunded to the Defendant.

In addition, the plaintiff is against the apartment of this case with the defendant.