The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number of documentary evidence), the plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract between Eul and D with respect to the business rights of six-story stores among the above Switzerland on June 10, 2016, and paid the above deposit amount of KRW 10 million to Eul and D when entering into the said sub-lease contract with Eul and D for the first year of the contract period, and the defendant takes over the above Switzerland's business rights, and the defendant stated that the defendant will be responsible for the payment of the purchase price in lieu of the plaintiff's sales price. In criminal cases where the plaintiff filed a complaint against Eul and D by occupational embezzlement, it cannot be acknowledged that the disposition was issued on the ground that C and D did not have any obligation to return the above 10 million won to the plaintiff on the ground that C and D did not have any obligation to return the above 10 million won.

B. As to the facts found above, the Defendant agreed that C and D shall take over the obligation to repay the above deposit amounting to KRW 10 million, which C and D paid to the Plaintiff in lieu of the payment of the purchase price. Since the above sub-lease of the Plaintiff ends on June 10, 2017 due to the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above deposit amounting to KRW 10 million and delay damages, barring any special circumstances.

C. The defendant did not receive the above KRW 10 million from the plaintiff, and argued that there is no reason to be responsible for the above money since it did not state the above money. However, since the defendant did not present any counter-proof to the above fact of recognition, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance ordering the payment of the above KRW 10 million and its delay damages is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.