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. The instant case asserts that the Defendant, with respect to the instant store without the Plaintiff’s permission, sub-leaseed KRW 50 million to G with the instant sub-lease contract, was rescinded, and that the instant sub-lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and G on the premise of the fact that the instant lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and G, and that the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation to return the deposit for G under the instant sub-lease contract instead of receiving KRW 50 million from G when entering into the instant lease contract with G, and that the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the obligation to return the deposit for G under the instant sub-lease contract, and that the Defendant seeks payment of KRW 50 million as the pretext of office management or return of unjust enrichment.

This Court's reasoning is as follows. This Court's reasoning is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition or dismissal of the following. Thus, this Court's reasoning is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The following shall be added between the fourth and fourth instances of the judgment of the first instance.

At the time, the Plaintiff was aware of embezzlement of the amount of KRW 50 million in operating capital of the D hotel including the instant store, and the Defendant tried to file a complaint against embezzlement. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had a reason to exempt the Defendant from the obligation to return the deposit for sub-lease deposit of KRW 50 million in the instant sub-lease contract to G for the hostile Defendant without receiving the deposit deposit amount of KRW 50 million in concluding the instant lease contract with G.

On May 9, 2007, when the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease contract with G, the Defendant delivered KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff via Nonparty H on May 9, 2007, which was the time when the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease contract, the part of the first instance court’s 4th and 6th instance judgment stating that the Plaintiff included KRW 50 million in the instant sub-lease contract.