1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around December 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to rent and use C-owned vehicles of KRW 25,000,000 for one year from C, introduced by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). (b)

On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted 10,000,000 won, which is a part of the deposit, to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred 15,000,000 won of the remaining deposit to the Defendant’s account on the same day after receiving the instant vehicle from the Defendant.

The Defendant transferred each of the above money from the Plaintiff to the account in the name of C on the day of receiving the said money.

C. C around August 20, 2016, filed an application to suspend the operation of the instant vehicle and brought the instant vehicle being used by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary claim is the party that entered into the instant agreement with C, and the Defendant received the deposit under the instant agreement from the Plaintiff. Since C brought about the instant vehicle, C is obligated to jointly return the deposit amount of KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. Although the Defendant’s conjunctive claim is not recognized as a party to the instant agreement, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 25,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 23, 2015, since the Defendant received KRW 16,00,000 from C, and KRW 10,000,000 on December 25, 2015, and did not return the deposit under the instant agreement to the Plaintiff even if it received without legal title. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the said unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In the event there is a difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties as to the primary claim, and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, it is intended to achieve the contents of the text, the motive and background of the agreement, and the agreement.