1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff visited C’s house to lend KRW 5.9 million to C on December 29, 2010. However, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5.9 million in a passbook in the name of the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s husband and the lessor would deliver the deposit amount to C; and (b) the Plaintiff would deliver the deposit amount to C; (c) the Defendant’s husband and the lessor would deposit KRW 5.9 million in a passbook in the name of the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not deliver the deposit amount to C; (d) as the Defendant did not deliver the deposit amount to C; and (e) the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 5.9 million and delay damages due to the return of the deposit amount or the return of unjust enrichment to C; and (e) the Defendant’s husband and wife received KRW 5.9 million from the Plaintiff to receive money lent by the Defendant to C.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 5.9 million to the Defendant on December 29, 2010 does not conflict between the parties, but only each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number) was a deposit contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the said money.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid the above money to the defendant without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim for return of custody money is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.