The main office of this case is dismissed.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) KRW 23,518,22.

1. Basic facts common to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. The Plaintiff operates the beauty art room under the trade name of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government C building and E in subparagraph d.

B. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay monthly rent and taxes on cosmetic stores on behalf of cosmetic stores on the grounds that the cosmetic service is difficult, and the Defendant transferred KRW 800,000 to the lessor F’s account on June 1, 2017, and the same year.

6.8. The total amount of 1,608,222 won was settled by credit card in the name of the defendant.

C. In addition, the Defendant remitted total of KRW 27,300,000 to the account in the name of the Plaintiff from October 12, 2016 to the account in the name of the Plaintiff to 18 times until February 1, 2019.

In addition, the Defendant received KRW 12,390,000 from the Plaintiff on April 25, 2017 and deposited KRW 12,390,000 in total over 14 times from January 25, 2019.

The Defendant approved 6,20,000 won in total on three occasions, including 1,90,000 won on May 21, 2018, 2018, 2,300,000 won on October 30, 2018, and 2,000,000 won on December 27, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s beauty service room.

E. Meanwhile, even though the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to repay each of the above payments, the Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure against the Plaintiff’s claim to refund the lease deposit against F with the Busan District Court Seo-gu, Busan District Court Decision 2019Kadan143 on July 26, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole arguments and arguments

2. Ex officio determination as to the claim of the principal lawsuit of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff and the defendant lived together with the plaintiff as the cause of the principal claim of this case, and they merely received money as living expenses from the defendant while living together with the defendant, and there is no fact that they borrowed money from the defendant.