1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 2008, C entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Defendant to lease a sing shop located under the ground of the D building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sing shop”) with a deposit of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant deposit”) and monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff lent C the instant loan of KRW 40,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

C. On June 28, 2011, the Defendant’s husband E entered into a contract with C and the Plaintiff at the request of C and C in the instant singing room. On the back of the instant lease agreement as the Defendant’s agent, the Defendant’s husband E entered the contract in the presence of the Plaintiff when he/she takes over and takes over only KRW 30 million of the instant singing room. On June 28, 2011, the Defendant’s husband E stated the phrase “the lessor’s agent E” (hereinafter “instant word”).

The instant lease agreement was terminated on February 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, 7, witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As indicated in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an agreement with the Plaintiff to allow the Plaintiff to receive the instant loan within the scope of the payment by directly paying the said deposit to the Plaintiff when the instant lease contract is terminated later, and the Defendant ought to return the instant deposit to C.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff and returned the instant deposit to C.

Therefore, the Defendant, as damages for nonperformance of the above agreement, should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million equivalent to the deposit amount of this case, or at least KRW 18 million, which the Defendant stated in advance, that he had returned to C.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is that the instant lease contract is terminated and the Defendant returns the instant deposit to C.