2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C and the Defendant on the underground floor (the leased object of this case) among the buildings located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the leased object of this case) with the rental deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 2 years from August 9, 2013.

B. C operated the “E” (hereinafter “E”) of the leased object of the instant case with the Plaintiff as a partnership with the Plaintiff.

C. C did not pay a monthly rent under the above lease agreement.

Upon C’s request, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant the sum of KRW 20,500,000,000 on December 19, 2013, and KRW 20,500,000 on March 12, 2014.

The defendant appropriated this to C's overdue rent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment on the grounds of claim

A. The gist of the argument was that the Defendant did not recognize the partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and C.

In addition, the Defendant arbitrarily closed the instant entertainment business establishment on April 2014.

Therefore, the defendant should return KRW 20,500,000 remitted by the plaintiff.

B. 1) The legal relationship on the leased object of this case is established pursuant to a lease agreement between the Defendant and C. The Defendant, a lessor, cannot be deemed to have a legal obligation to recognize a partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and C, not a party to the lease agreement. 2) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant voluntarily closed the instant entertainment business.

Even if the Defendant were to know, the legal relationship based on the money transferred by the Plaintiff is a matter to be settled according to the partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and C.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff transferred the overdue rent to the Defendant at the request of C who is a partner.

Therefore, the Plaintiff returned the money that he remitted to the Defendant with overdue rent for the reasons as alleged above.