1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was the representative director of C, and C was the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground building (hereinafter “instant building”). As to the first and second floors of the instant building with C, the Defendant entered into a lease on a deposit basis on May 12, 2005, and completed a lease on a deposit basis on May 13, 2005, up to 350,000,000 won for lease on a deposit basis, and up to March 31, 2006, with the person having a right to lease on a deposit basis as the Defendant of the lease on a deposit basis.

B. After doing so, the Defendant prepared a blank document on which his name was written in writing and affixed his seal thereto, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

C. On August 30, 2005, the Plaintiff’s husband supplemented the following as a receipt to the upper part of the Defendant’s name and seal imprint of the above blank document:

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant receipt”). The said amount shall be received as the refund of the deposit for the first floor and the second floor lease of the instant building.

(F) August 30, 2005, d. 30. 206

On July 29, 2005, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction of this case as E and F (Dual) on July 29, 2005. Accordingly, the registration of the decision to commence the auction was completed on August 4, 2005. The defendant received 350,000,000 won for security deposit in the above voluntary auction procedure on July 25, 2006.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On August 30, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant building was put up for auction and lent KRW 350,000,000 to the Defendant under the pretext of returning the deposit money in advance. The Defendant received a distribution of the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis in the discretionary auction procedure for the instant building, and the Defendant decided to repay the above loan obligations.

Then, the Defendant did not repay the loan to the Plaintiff even after receiving the dividend of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis in the discretionary auction procedure for the instant building. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 350,000,000 and delay damages therefor.