The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. Around November 2018, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the following: (a) the Plaintiff installed multiple business facilities to enable the Defendant to conduct the “E” business on the D 1st floor in Seocheon-si; and (b) the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to pay a deposit of KRW 6 million and KRW 500,000 per month to the Plaintiff.

After that, the defendant began multiple businesses, and the plaintiff requested the defendant to enter into a lease contract between the defendant and the landlord and arranged it, and transferred the plaintiff's business registration to the defendant.

However, the Defendant paid 1 million won monthly rent of 2 months to the Plaintiff and did not pay the remainder. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 10,160,000 paid to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers) of the judgment No. 2, 3, and 4, it is predicted that the Plaintiff installed the business facilities of the instant tea at the Plaintiff’s expense.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s expenses of KRW 10,160,000 for the tea of this case and installed business facilities.

It is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff paid such expenses.

Even if the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the cost of establishing the Multilateral Business Facilities

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The lease contract (No. 5) submitted by the Plaintiff is merely a provisional contract for the lease between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and F, a stock company, the owner of the instant multi-purpose building. The copy of the passbook (No. 1) is only confirmed to have been transferred to G, the representative director of F, a stock company, on January 4, 2019, KRW 1 million, and deposited in KRW 100,000 from the Defendant on January 15, 2019.

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.