1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On October 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to jointly operate the real estate brokerage business under the trade name of D Licensed Real Estate Agent in Chang-si, Chang-si, Chang-si, Seoul, with the Defendant holding a licensed real estate agent’s license, and invested lease deposit, interior cost, etc. (2) After which it is difficult for D Licensed Real Estate Agents to operate the real estate agent, the Defendant paid 5,65,000 won out of the amount invested by the Plaintiff on February 28, 2013 on the condition that the business relationship with the Plaintiff is terminated with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract deposit”).

3) On April 19, 2013, the Defendant repaid KRW 2,290,00 to E, who is the Plaintiff’s wife. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 3,365,00 (=5,65,000 - 2,290,000) and damages for delay calculated by applying each of the annual rates of 20% as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 1, 2013 to August 16, 2013 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant from the date following the date of repayment of the instant contract to the date of repayment of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant only prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter "the cash custody certificate of this case") stating that the plaintiff's wife E and Dong business operated D licensed real estate agents and paid KRW 5,655,00 to E, and therefore, the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the contract amount to the plaintiff. However, the defendant's assertion as above is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion on the evidence Nos. 2 and 6. The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Next, the defendant asserted that he forced the plaintiff to prepare the cash custody certificate of this case, but there is evidence to recognize this.