보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 through 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings in witness Eul's testimony on September 13, 2014, it is recognized that the defendant's father C leased the plaintiff on September 13, 2014 by fixing the deposit amount of KRW 150 million for E-Sa or sugar services in Seo-gu, Incheon, and the lease period from September 17, 2014 to 24 months (hereinafter "the instant service contract"), and as the deposit amount, the plaintiff received KRW 50 million in total from the plaintiff on September 13, 2014 and KRW 150 million on September 15, 2014.
The Plaintiff asserts that C was responsible for the establishment of the instant service contract on behalf of the Defendant (or the recognition of liability for expression agency) or that the Defendant was the joint lessor, and that as long as the said private loan was terminated on the grounds of the delinquency in rent on August 25, 2015, the Defendant was liable to return the deposit amount of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s proof No. 2 (a private loan) cannot be deemed as evidence as there is no evidence to prove the establishment of the said petition, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact of the said agency, expression agency, or joint lease.
(1) The plaintiff's claim of this case based on this premise is without merit and is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.