1. The part of the judgment subject to a retrial against the Defendant (Plaintiff) and the judgment of the first instance are revoked.

2...

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:

On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) claiming the payment of KRW 30 million and its delay damages by asserting the primary and conjunctive cause of claim as follows:

(B) On December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract (hereinafter “sub-lease contract in this case”) with the Defendant, etc. and the Gwangju Dong-gu Do Do Do Do Do dong Do Do dong Do Do Do as to the Y-dong Do Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do 1 (hereinafter “the instant Do Do Do Do 1”) with a sub-lease contract (hereinafter “sub-lease contract”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 6.3 million won out of the 50 million Do 20 million Do Do 1 and transferred the remaining 43.7 million won to the account under the Defendant’s name.

The instant sub-lease contract was terminated on January 2013, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant store to the Defendant, etc.

Therefore, the defendant et al. is jointly and severally liable to pay 30 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

Preliminary Claim (Defendant) : (In the event that the fact of entering into a sub-lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not recognized), the Defendant received from the Plaintiff the money of KRW 30 million in the name of the sub-lease deposit from the Plaintiff to gain profits without any legal cause, and thereby suffered losses equivalent to the same amount from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff unjust enrichment of KRW 30 million and delay damages.

B. On February 13, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff”) on the following order: (a) the reasoning for the judgment in the written judgment was not stated pursuant to Article 11-2(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

The above judgment on March 1, 2018.