1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 2012, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) entrusted the management of the instant parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) to D Co., Ltd., a representative director of which the Defendant was the Defendant, with a fixed amount of KRW 10,00 won and two years, without rent, for the management of the instant parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

Article 5 of the above entrustment contract provides that the transfer of the right of lease, the sub-lease of the parking lot of this case, or the permission for use by any other person shall not be allowed.

B. On November 12, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract on the transfer of the right to the instant parking lot (including lease deposit) and the facility (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with the Plaintiff, and received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff.

C. On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) purchased and operated the instant parking lot from the Defendant; (b) received and managed revenues including deposit for lease on a deposit basis; and (c) entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff may enter into a direct contract with the building owner at the request of the Defendant one year after the date of the contract.

In addition, on the same day, the Defendant’s “10 million won” is deemed to be “the cash custody certificate of this case,” stating that “in principle, the Plaintiff shall keep the contract with the owner of the instant parking lot until the conclusion of the contract with the owner of the building is completed, and shall be repaid at the time of the direct contract is made.”

E) Around December 2013, the Plaintiff completed the business of the said parking lot and delivered the instant parking lot to C. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 3, Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion was that the Plaintiff did not directly conclude a lease contract for the instant parking lot between C and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of the instant parking lot.