1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates Cgymnasium, and the Defendant was delegated by the Plaintiff and operated Cgymnasium from August 2005 to October 20.

B. On September 16, 2005, the Defendant received a proposal from the Plaintiff to accept the above gymnasium, and prepared a loan certificate stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed five million won from the Plaintiff, and would pay it on November 28, 2005.”

C. Since then, there was no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the acquisition of sports halls.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 5 million based on the instant loan certificate, the Defendant is obligated to pay the same.

In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff himself prepared the loan certificate of this case for the purpose of paying for the acquisition price of a sports hall to the plaintiff, and the following facts that the plaintiff and the defendant have not concluded a contract for the acquisition of a sports hall, it is reasonable to view that the loan certificate of this case is a payment agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant on the condition that the contract for the acquisition of a sports hall is to be concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the above payment agreement of this case was invalidated due to the lack of the contract

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the validity of the sports hall underwriting contract, is without merit.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Defendant did not properly settle the income at the time of operating a sports center and caused damage, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 5 million agreed as the damage.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the loan certificate of this case was scheduled to compensate for damages due to the operation of the defendant's sports center or was prepared to guarantee the damages. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.