Although the defendant did not have an intention or ability to return the deposit money, he concluded the contract to establish the right to lease on a deposit basis and received KRW 50 million from the plaintiff, and the building of this case was sold at auction, and the defendant is liable to return the deposit money to the plaintiff.

2. First of all, we examine the argument that the defendant is liable to return the deposit money as a party to the contract to lease on a deposit basis, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem the defendant as a party to the contract to lease on a deposit basis, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (According to the statement of evidence No. 1, the lessor is recorded as D, the defendant is recorded as his agent, and the certificate No. 2 states that D delegates all the powers concerning the sale and purchase and lease of the building of this case to the defendant, and it is difficult to see that the defendant is a party to the contract to lease on a deposit basis solely because the defendant presented the above power of attorney to the plaintiff.) The plaintiff

B. Next, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of deceiving the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, by deceiving the Plaintiff without the intent or ability of the Defendant to return the deposit money.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Finally, we examine the argument based on the terms of the contract on the return of deposit money.

In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6 and 13, the decision to commence the auction of the building of this case was issued on November 9, 2015.