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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of dismissal or addition as described in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts used or added;

(a) No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 2-1, 2, and 5-7 of the A (including a serial number for those with a serial number)" shall be added to "No. 2, 4-7 of the A (including a serial number for those with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)" in Section 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 4 through 8 shall be reversed as follows.

2 The Defendant asserts that KRW 40,00,000 paid on April 19, 2013 was paid from the Plaintiff for facility construction expenses, authorization expenses, service expenses, and KRW 50,000 paid on June 27, 2013 in the process of changing the purpose of use of the instant dan as an entertainment tavern for which women are allowed to employ the said dan after the Plaintiff agreed to receive the instant entertainment bar, and that the said KRW 50,000,000 paid on June 27, 2013 is a premium for the instant dan.

However, as shown in the Defendant’s assertion, the witness H’s testimony is insufficient to recognize the facts of the Defendant’s assertion, such as the following: (a) the relationship with the Defendant; (b) the said witness appears not to have been in a position to know detailed matters regarding the transfer of the instant dan; and (c) the lack of the existence of the content of the testimony; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant alone paid KRW 50,000,000 as the premium for the instant dan; and (c) there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to bear the costs of installing facilities that are spent for the change of the use of the instant dan; and (d) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact of the Defendant’s assertion, such as the fact that 40,000,000 won was spent for the change of the use of the instant dan; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.