A. C, on the fifth floor of the Heung-gu D Building in Young-gu, Young-si, Inc. (hereinafter “this case trading hole”), as a person who had operated the Securities Holdings with the trade name, entered into a photographing agreement between the Plaintiff operating the Securities Exchange and the Plaintiff, which set the deposit amount of KRW 200 million (hereinafter “the instant contract”). Around January 2008, C decided to return the deposit amount of KRW 200 million upon the termination of the instant contract.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to C, and C, on March 12, 2009, issued a promissory note amounting to KRW 200 million at the face value as of May 30, 201, with the payee as the Plaintiff, in order to secure the obligation to refund the said deposit, and the said promissory note was issued by a notary public to the Plaintiff under the notarial Deed No. 102, 2009.

C. Pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff was requested to take photographs of the instant trading hole in accordance with C, and received the amount from C.

The Defendant: (a) was a person who leased five floors of the instant database building and operated a cover cover page; (b) was engaged in the instant crowdfunding business in the name of “G” from September 13, 2013 to around August 2016; (c) requested the Plaintiff to take photographs from around that time to around August 2016; and (d) paid the Plaintiff photographs; (c) on June 2016, the Defendant concluded a contract with a third party to take photographs; and (d) suspended the Plaintiff’s request to take photographs from August 2016 to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition: Records Nos. 1 through 10; Inquiries and replys to the director of the tax office for interest in the court; and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

A. The summary of the argument is that the defendant acquired the contract of this case from C, and thus, the deposit amount of KRW 200 million must be returned to the plaintiff.

B. The evidence No. 3, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion, is admissible as evidence, as there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.