1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. On April 2010, C paid a deposit of KRW 5 million and monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million with the Defendant, and operated the Deputy Director at a part of the space above the Kk Center’s ground operated by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff, the mother of C, agreed to pay the operating funds of the Deputy Director (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Plaintiff, as a deposit on April 2, 2010, remitted to the Defendant KRW 5 million under the name of the deposit, KRW 3 million on April 10, 201, KRW 7.5 million on May 6, 2010, KRW 7.7 million on the monthly rent of the Si facilities and monthly rent of KRW 7 million on July 8, 2010, and KRW 300,000 on July 3, 2010, and KRW 300,0000 on July 1, 2010, having been assigned to the Deputy Director for approximately 2 months, and there is no dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of the testimony.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the deposit amount of five million won, it is reasonable to view that the agreement of this case is without setting the time limit, and it is impliedly agreed upon upon upon the expiration of the extended period after the end of the business of C, and in the interpretation of the above agreement, the right to claim the return of the deposit belongs to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of five million won to the plaintiff

B. On April 10, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant as the expenses for authorization and permission, which was already known to the Defendant on April 10, 2010, and thus, it was impossible for the Defendant to conduct business from the beginning, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the said money is in the name of the expenses for authorization and permission, or that the Defendant did not perform the duty of vicarious authorization and permission upon receiving the said money, even though it was impossible to conduct business by the said Vice Vice Director, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

(c).