1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million on October 23, 2014, KRW 17 million on October 3, 2014, KRW 10 million on October 31, 101, KRW 42 million on April 2, 11, and KRW 42 million to E, the former owner.

B. On June 8, 2015, as to D, reported the suspension of business.

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the agreed amount, etc. with the Chuncheon District Court 2015Kadan6817, and the appellate court rendered a judgment on April 26, 2017 with the following contents, and the final judgment became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the appeal.

The Defendant’s KRW 6,3270,000 from the Plaintiff on September 3, 2009,

9. 30.26 million won, KRW 5 million on September 9, 2013, and KRW 3 million have a duty to pay the remainder of KRW 9,1270,000 (=63.27 million + KRW 2.6 million + KRW 5 million + KRW 5 million).

The Plaintiff paid in lieu of the deposit amount of KRW 12 million from November 20, 2014 to April 20, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the deposit amount of KRW 12 million, as the Plaintiff paid in lieu of the deposit amount from November 20, 2014 to April 20, 2015.

The defendant asserted to the effect that "the plaintiff used the bank account in the name of the plaintiff while operating D in the name of the plaintiff, and the above KRW 12 million was deposited into the above account with D's operating revenues, and the plaintiff given discretion on D's operating revenues, so long as the plaintiff given discretion on D's operating revenues, the defendant consented to or consented to use the amount of KRW 12 million in the repayment of obligations to F. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above 12 million won obligation is related to the operation of D.

The Plaintiff, upon introduction by the Defendant, lent KRW 60 million to G in February 2014, and received the payment of KRW 39.9 million among them. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 20.1 million (=60 million-39.9 million) to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant argued that the income earned in the course of operating D was fully repaid by the plaintiff while managing the operating income, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion.