1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant real estate, held consultations related to the eroding and selling of the instant real estate, with respect to the instant site B and above ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. At the time of consultation on the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, the Defendant’s employees, a certified judicial scrivener, demanded that the Plaintiff transfer KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of custody in order to prove that the Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant real estate and to continue consultation on the terms of sale and purchase. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account on May 26, 2015.

C. Since the money transferred by the Plaintiff as above was paid for consultation on the conclusion of the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the amount of custody should be returned to the Plaintiff in the event that the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the corporation were concluded or the sales contract was not concluded.

Inasmuch as the terms and conditions of the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as to the instant real estate are not consistent, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.

E. If the amount of KRW 10 million, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant, is not a custody money of the above nature, the Defendant took profits without any legal ground, and thus, is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. On May 26, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant on May 26, 2015 does not dispute the Defendant.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that KRW 10 million, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, was deposited in the Defendant for consultation on the conclusion of the sales contract on the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to

Rather, arguments are made in each entry of Nos. 1 to 3, 4, and 9.