1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. whose representative director was the Plaintiff was the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Ground Building (hereinafter “instant building”).

On May 12, 2005, the defendant entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with C on the first and second floors among the instant buildings, and on May 13, 2005, the defendant completed the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis for lease on a deposit basis until March 31, 2006, as a person of a right to lease on a deposit basis.

B. On July 29, 2005, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant building, and the Defendant received the total amount of KRW 350,000,000 as a person of chonsegwon in the aforementioned voluntary auction procedure on July 25, 2006.

On July 26, 2007, the above auction court deposited the above dividends. On April 11, 2016, the defendant was paid KRW 224,414,645, excluding the amount executed by the defendant's creditor after seizure among the security deposit received as above, in fact, the defendant was paid KRW 228,447,960, including the above KRW 224,414,645 and interest thereon.

was paid by the Corporation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On August 30, 2008, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff lent KRW 350,000,000 to the Defendant, and thereafter, the Defendant promised to repay the said loan when the amount equivalent to the deposit money was paid at the auction procedure for the instant building. In order to clarify such loan agreement, the Plaintiff also prepared a receipt to the effect that the Plaintiff received KRW 350,000,000 as the refund money for the deposit money for the instant building on the same day.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 350,000,000 borrowed as above.

B. 1) Evidence A No. 1 (the receipt and the defendant's seal image part is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document due to the lack of dispute in the receipt and the defendant's seal image part, according to the statement that the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established, the above amount shall be received as the refund of the first and second floor lease deposit in the name of the defendant.

3.