Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Yang Woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Yong-Nam, Attorneys White-il et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 26, 2015

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Da6274 Decided March 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim added at the trial, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 115,50,000 won with 20% interest per annum from November 13, 2014 to the day of full payment.

3. The costs of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant primarily pays to the plaintiff 150,00,000 won and 50,000,000 won from August 20, 2011; 70,000,000 won from March 8, 2012; 30,000,000 won per annum from January 1, 2013 to the delivery date of the duplicate of each complaint of this case; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. Preliminaryly, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 115,50,000 won with the interest of 115,50,000 won per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The defendant additionally claimed to pay from the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 20% per annum per annum from the next day after the date of delivery of the purpose of the claim and the cause of modification of the complaint of this case from November 12, 2014 to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant

While the Plaintiff and the Defendant (the name before the opening of the name: Do governor) were close to the post-school line, from April 2006 to May 2012, 201, they were living together with Nonparty 1, his father, the Plaintiff’s father, and the Defendant (the name of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the Do governor,

B. Money transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

From February 11, 2003 to October 11, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant traded money by account transfer, etc. over several times between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. During the said period, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a real estate sales contract with the purport that the Defendant sold the Defendant’s share of KRW 165 million to the Plaintiff from among the Gu-Si, Si, Si, 2006 ( Address 1 omitted) on December 16, 2006, and received full payment of the price, and made a testament on December 30, 2009 to testamentary gifting all the property under the Defendant’s name to Nonparty 1, his father, and issued the Plaintiff a loan certificate of KRW 30 million on December 3, 2010 to the Plaintiff, and ④ on June 25, 2011, the Defendant set up the maximum debt amount of KRW 250 million on the land and KRW 300 million on the ground, and the Plaintiff 250 million on the top of the maximum debt amount.

C. Preparation of lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant

1) Around March 8, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) entered as the lease deposit amount of KRW 70 million (hereinafter “instant first lease deposit”) and the lease agreement entered as the lease period of 36 months with respect to the part on the settlement of the house at the time of the Gu-U.S.-si ( Address 1 omitted) and the part on the settlement of the real estate (hereinafter “instant building 1”).

2) On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the part of the old-si ( Address 1 omitted) △△△△ (hereinafter “instant building”) of the building on the ground, which is indicated as KRW 50 million (hereinafter “the instant lease deposit”) and KRW 24 months for the lease period, on which the lease agreement was entered as KRW 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

3) On August 30, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “third lease agreement of this case”) with respect to KRW 30,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the third lease deposit”) for the lease deposit with respect to KRW 120,00 on the ground stable of Kimcheon-si ( Address 2 and 3 omitted) (hereinafter “the third building of this case”), and the lease agreement (hereinafter “third lease agreement of this case”).

(d) Operation of △△○○-dong store in the Gu and the Gu;

On the other hand, from March 29, 1996, the Plaintiff operated the clothing store (hereinafter “○○○○○ △△△○○ store”) in the name of “△△△△△○○○” from around March 29, 199, and around July 1, 2006, the name of the above store was changed to the Defendant, and thereafter, the account of the Nonghyup Bank (Account No. 1 omitted), the national bank account (Account No. 2 omitted) and the national bank account was used in the operation of the above store.

E. Progress a separate lawsuit (hereinafter “the separate lawsuit of this case”)

1) On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the remainder of 565,686,749 won remaining after deducting or offsetting the money that the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff from the amount that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant, and the delay damages therefrom ( Daegu District Court Kimcheon-ro 2013Gahap907). The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of loans or unjust enrichment, and the total amount deposited by the Plaintiff out of the transfer proceeds of ○○ Dong ○○○ △ △△△ △△ △△ △△ △△ △△ △△ △△ △ △△ △△ △ △△ △, 765,160 won (the aforementioned support)

2) On October 24, 2014, the court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s principal claim, and rendered a judgment on the Defendant’s counterclaim to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 105,431,181 won, the deposit money of the loan principal 50 million won in ○○○dong ○○○○ △△△△△△△△△, the total amount of KRW 233,431,181, and the loan repayment amount of KRW 233,431,181, and its interest from July 25, 2014 to October 24, 2014, the amount of KRW 5% per annum and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

3) The Plaintiff appealed and the appellate court rendered an appeal on September 8, 2015. The appellate court ordered the Plaintiff to pay to the Plaintiff 406,369,491 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from December 3, 2013 to September 8, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The portion of the part related to the counterclaim of the judgment of the first instance that the Plaintiff lost among the parts related to the counterclaim of the judgment of the lower court was revoked, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim for counterclaim corresponding to the revoked portion [the Daegu High Court 2014Na4874 (Main claim), 2014Na4881 (Counterclaim)].

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, 20, 38, 40, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 31 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the first, second, and third lease agreements, and the Plaintiff paid the first, second, and third lease deposits in the same manner as follows: (i) each of the above lease agreements was terminated or terminated upon the expiration of the period, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the Plaintiff the total amount of the lease deposit and damages for delay.

① Total amount of KRW 120 million,00,000,000,000 for the first and second lease deposits

On September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff received a return of KRW 100,000,000 as the deposit for rent of the apartment that was previously leased, and deposited KRW 85,55,50,000 among them into the account under the name of the Defendant at the Defendant’s request, and paid KRW 100,000 to the Defendant in cash the remainder of KRW 14,50,000,000 to the Defendant, and agreed between the Defendant and the Defendant to substitute for KRW 20,000,000,000 out of the deposit for rent. As such, the Defendant paid the sum of the deposit for rent KRW 12,50,000,000 to the Defendant

② Deposit for the third lease of the instant case KRW 30 million

On January 25, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○-dong △△△△△○○ store (△△ sports store) owned by the Plaintiff, and received one cashier’s check of KRW 20 million at the face value and KRW 10 million at the face value. On February 4, 2010, the Plaintiff deposited two copies of the check with the Defendant’s national bank account in the name of the Defendant and lent it to the Defendant. Since the Defendant agreed to substitute the above loans of KRW 30 million with the Defendant for the deposit money of KRW 30 million, the Plaintiff paid all of the deposit money of KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

B) Even if there is a certain difference in the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as the lease deposit, the Defendant agreed to return the lease deposit under the above contract to the Plaintiff by preparing the lease contract in the first, second, and third cases. Accordingly, according to the agreement, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the above KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay.

2) The defendant's assertion

In collusion with the Defendant, the Plaintiff prepared the lease agreement Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of this case by falsity, and the Defendant did not actually conclude the above lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and the amount that the Plaintiff deposited as the lease deposit to the Defendant was to repay the amount that the Defendant lent to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not receive the Plaintiff’s claim from the Plaintiff as the lease deposit under the above lease agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit

B. Determination

1) The fact that each of the lease contracts of this case, in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant explicitly stated each of the lease deposits of this case, was made out is as seen earlier. According to the following: Gap's statement Nos. 3, 9, and 15; Gap's National Bank's business support center of the court of first instance; and the court of first instance's judgment's order to submit each of the financial transaction information to the head of the Korea Exchange Bank's business support center of Korea Exchange Bank's business support center of Korea; on September 25, 2009, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case; refunded the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million; refunded the lease deposit amount of KRW 8,55 million to the national bank account (Account No. 3 omitted); on the same day, the plaintiff deposited KRW 4, 2010 into the national bank account in the name of the defendant's name; and on February 4, 2010, the plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million in the above bank's account in the name of 1 million.

2) However, in light of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11 through 14, and 27, the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged. As a result of the order to submit each financial transaction information on the above acknowledged facts and Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, 16 through 35, and 37, the national bank of the trial court, the foreign exchange bank operating support center of the foreign exchange bank, and the records of the fact inquiry about the defendant Kimcheon-si, the court of the trial, and the Kimcheon-si market, the fact-finding alone paid KRW 150 million to the defendant as the lease deposit of this case, or there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant agreed that the plaintiff would return the lease deposit set forth in the lease contract No. 1, 2, and 3 of this case at the time of termination of the lease contract. Thus, the plaintiff's claim on this premise is without merit.

① Each lease contract of this case includes only the amount of lease guarantee and the period of lease, and it does not specify the payment or receipt of the lease deposit, and it cannot be deemed that each lease contract of this case has the nature of a disposition document prepared to the effect that each lease contract of this case received the lease deposit of this case.

② The Plaintiff and the Defendant live in a single house and operated a community by using the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant to operate the ○○dong △△△ store. If the Plaintiff and the Defendant had been frequently engaged in money transactions from around 2003 to around 2012 by account transfer, etc., the money deposited by the Plaintiff to the Defendant cannot be determined as a deposit for lease.

③ On September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that he paid the instant deposit for rent Nos. 1 and 2, which was 1 and 6 months from March 8, 2009, the instant lease agreement was made up on March 8, 2009, and August 20, 2009, and on February 4, 2010, asserting that he paid the deposit for rent No. 3, the instant lease agreement was made up on or before around 1 and 6 months from August 30, 201, which is very exceptional in light of the time of payment of the general lease deposit. In particular, considering that there was a money transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant several times, it is somewhat difficult to understand that he paid the said deposit in lieu of the deposit for rent No. 3, in lieu of the deposit for rent No. 3.

④ 원고는 소외 9 명의를 빌려 이 사건 제2건물에서 ‘▷▷▷▷▷▷▷’라는 상호로 학원을 운영하였는데 구미세무서장 명의의 ‘등록사항 등의 현황서’에는 이 사건 제2건물의 임차보증금이 1,000만 원으로 기재되어 있다.

⑤ There is no objective evidence to prove that the Plaintiff spent KRW 20 million as repair costs at the time of moving into the first and second buildings of this case.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Even if it is not recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 150 million to the Defendant as the security deposit for each of the instant lease deposits, it constitutes a loan that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant on September 25, 2009, and KRW 30 million on February 4, 2010, which is premised on the return, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 150 million and delay damages.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) Since the Defendant has been engaged in money transactions several times with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lent the said money to the Defendant solely on the fact that the Plaintiff deposited the said money to the Defendant, and the said money is only the money deposited as part of ordinary monetary transactions between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Rather, the Defendant has not only the loan claims asserted against the Plaintiff in the instant separate lawsuit, but also the following claims, such as

B) Even if the liability to repay the above amount is recognized against the Defendant, if the amount is set off within the scope of equal amount with the total amount of KRW 115,500,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s loans to the Defendant, under which the amount is specified, the Defendant’s conjunctive claim is no longer reasonable since it remains more than the Defendant’s additional claim.

Around May 24, 2006, the Defendant: (a) sold to Nonparty 5, the remaining residents of the Plaintiff, KRW 280,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the Defendant’s operation; (b) on June 28, 2006, at the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff transferred the store to KRW 22,20,000,00; and (c) the Defendant divided the store into two; and (d) assigned the Plaintiff to Nonparty 2 the sports promotion store of the trade name of △△-sports and the △△△ △ △ dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated, the Defendant transferred the store to Nonparty 2 on January 14, 201; and (d) the Plaintiff continued to operate the △△ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △.

As the Plaintiff received lease deposit and monthly rent from the lessee in relation to the commercial lease contract for the third-story building located in the old-si, the Si, the Defendant, who is owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant has the right to claim compensation against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the claim”).

The defendant has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff since he paid premiums of 12,265,40 won to the plaintiff from 2009 to July 2013.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the ownership relationship of ○○-dong store

On February 4, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 30 million deposited to the Defendant was part of the amount that he received by transferring △△△ Sports Burial, a part of his own ○○dong sales outlet, to (Non-Party 2 omitted). The Defendant also asserted that the △△△△△ Group, a part of the Plaintiff’s ○○dong △△△△△△ store that the Plaintiff acquired from the Plaintiff, embezzled the amount of KRW 135 million around September 201 and embezzled the payment. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the damage claim corresponding to the above amount has been created. As such, since both the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserts on the premise that they own the ownership of ○○ △dong △△△△△△△△○ store, the ownership of the said store at the time of each transfer, the first examination is conducted.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on Gap's statement Nos. 14, 24, 35, 36, 41 through 47, 54, 55, 5657, 60, 61, 62, and 8, 11, 17, 22, and 23 as a result of the order issued by the court of first instance to submit financial transaction information to the president of the port credit union, and the fact-finding results of fact-finding and the whole purport of oral argument by the court of first instance, it is reasonable to deem that ○○dong △△△△△△ has owned ownership to the plaintiff at the time of the above transfer.

① 원고는 2006. 7.경 ♤♤대학교 사회체육학부 교수로 임용될 예정이었는데, 사립학교의 교원은 규정상 영리를 목적으로 하는 업무에 종사하지 못함에 따라 원고는 더 이상 자신의 명의로 ○○동 △△매장을 운영하기 어렵게 되었다.

② The Plaintiff and the Defendant set the value of the store transfer to KRW 44,897,879 in a contract for business transfer and takeover prepared on June 28, 2006. However, in light of the fact that around January 201, Nonparty 2 (non-party 2 omitted) transferred the △△ Sports Burial in KRW 3220 million, it is difficult to view that the above contract for business transfer and takeover was actually made.

③ In operating the Plaintiff’s ○○○ Dong △△ branch store, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of the first-class neighboring mortgage on April 3, 1996 with respect to the land 137 square meters owned by the Plaintiff’s father and Nonparty 3 as the collateral for the Plaintiff’s father’s performance of the obligation, including the sales price for the goods, etc. for the Plaintiff’s △△△ branch branch. The registration was completed on December 16, 1998 with respect to the establishment of the first-class neighboring mortgage as the Plaintiff, the obligor, and the △△△ branch Korea Co., Ltd.; and the registration was completed on December 16, 1998 with respect to the establishment of the establishment of the second-class neighboring neighboring neighboring mortgage, each of which was established under the Defendant’s name on the ground of an exemption from liability on July 10, 206 even after the name of the Defendant was changed

④ On the other hand, the Defendant, while operating the △△ Dong store, filed a guarantee insurance contract concluded with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance on July 10, 2006, under the joint and several surety of Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 6, whose parents were the parents for the said security, on July 10, 2006, on the whole of the shares of Non-Party 4 in the old city ( Address 1 omitted) on the part of Non-Party 1, 2005, which was the maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million, the debtor, the Defendant, and △△△△ Korea Co., Ltd., but the Defendant revoked the registration of the establishment of the above mortgage on July 10, 206, immediately after the Plaintiff’s business was transferred to Nonparty 5.

⑤ As of August 12, 2006, the Defendant prepared a sales contract stating that “○○-dong sales store shall be sold to the Plaintiff at KRW 400 million, but the down payment of KRW 50 million shall be paid at the time of the contract and the balance of KRW 350 million shall be paid on December 17, 2006,” and issued it to the Plaintiff. On December 27, 2006, the Defendant entered the purchaser as the Plaintiff and issued a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sales for which the Plaintiff was issued.

6) According to the draft plan on May 29, 2006, which is the internal document of the head office of △△△ Korea (the head office of △△△ branch office), the reason for changing the change of the business operator of the ○○ Dong dong store into the name of the defendant (the head office of ○○ and the head office of △△ branch office) due to various tax issues, such as the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income, business income, etc.

7) After the change of ○○○-dong store in the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid monthly rent to Nonparty 7, the owner of the building, and received such receipts, and the Plaintiff mainly handled remittance affairs, additional tax payments, and public charges for the head office.

8) From around 2002, ○○○○dong store was divided into △△ Sports Store and △△○○○○ store, and was operated. On January 2009, 2009, at the time of changing △△△ exclusive store into △△ golf store, Nonparty 8, the Plaintiff, and Nonparty 8, each of whom paid KRW 10 million to the head office of △△△△△ branch, by excluding the Defendant, who is the business entity of △△△○○○ branch, at the time of changing the said △△△△ exclusive store into △△○ golf store.

(9) On January 12, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 164,666,610, which is the remainder of the amount excluding various taxes and public charges, from the Posib Credit Cooperative, deposited the total amount of KRW 164,66,610, which is the remainder in the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number 2 omitted) in the Defendant’s name used for the operation of ○○○○dong △△△△○ store, and used it as the interior cost of △△△ golf stores and the operating

⑩ 피고가 2006. 5. 24.경 원고의 동생인 소외 5에게 피고가 운영하던 ▽▽동 △△ 매장을 2억 8,000만 원에 양도하는 계약을 체결하고 2006. 6. 8. 소외 5로부터 매매대금 중 2억 3,000만 원을 송금받아 2006. 6. 9. 그 중 2억 2,000만 원을 수표로 출금하긴 하였으나 출금된 수표 중 1,000만 원권 수표 1장만이 2006. 8. 28. ♡♡동 △△ 매장의 운영에 사용된 피고 명의의 농협은행 계좌(계좌번호 1 생략)에 입금되었을 뿐, 달리 원고에게 위 돈이 지급되었다고 볼 객관적 자료가 없다.

2) The nature of money transactions remitted to an account between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire argument, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant met at a single house and operated a community by using the account in the name of the Defendant, and operated a store in ○○ Dong-dong △△△△△△△, etc., the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not set the time or interest rate for the repayment of the borrowed money or prepare the borrowed certificate, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant began to live separately from May 2012. The Plaintiff and the Defendant began to file a lawsuit on money relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant from around 2013. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the separate lawsuit in the instant case and the instant case are the funds transferred to each other to each other. In light of the above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have transferred money to each other, but if their lives as a community are completed, they would have agreed to seek the repayment of the remaining money by settling the remitted money to each other and seeking the payment of the principal of the borrowed money.

3) Determination on the cause of the claim

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 85 million to the Defendant on September 25, 2009, and KRW 30 million on February 4, 2010, and deposited KRW 35 million to the Defendant. Inasmuch as it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to seek reimbursement of the remaining money after settling the transferred money to each party when the Plaintiff’s living as a community is completed, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant is a loan to the Defendant.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 150 million of the loan and damages for delay.

4) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) Whether an existing claim was established under the Act

Although the Defendant’s above assertion is premised on the premise that the △△ golf store transferred to Nonparty 10 among the ○○dong stores is owned by the Defendant, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is the owner of the said store at the time of the above transfer, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the claim under the Act was created

B) Whether a claim arises within the Republic of Korea

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2, 16, 26, 28, and 29, the plaintiff was partially paid the lease deposit and monthly rent for commercial building lease from the lessee of the third floor building located in the old-si ( Address 1 omitted) in the city owned by the defendant, but the plaintiff and the defendant were living together in the community by using the account in the name of the defendant and operating the ○○dong store in one house, and the plaintiff did not raise any objection against the receipt of monthly rent for the above building. In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff arbitrarily consumed the monthly rent for the building and caused damage to the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the claims of the judgment below have occurred.

C) Whether there is a claim for V

According to the evidence Nos. 30-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 30-2, the fact that the defendant paid insurance premiums on behalf of the plaintiff from 2009 to July 2013 is recognized, but as seen earlier, the plaintiff and the defendant were living together in the community by living in one house from around 2013 up to the distance between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there have been money transactions over several occasions without setting the time or interest rate for the return of the borrowed money between the plaintiff and the defendant. In light of the above facts alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff acquired substantial unjust enrichment and caused damage equivalent to the amount to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the claim for co-payment has occurred.

D) As seen earlier, in the appellate court of the instant separate lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff was partially accepted, and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim was ruled to be dismissed. As long as it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim was all the one under the context of the lower court’s claim, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay to the Defendant remains, and the Defendant’s claim premised on the occurrence of each of the above claims is without merit.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 115 million and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 13, 2014 to the date of delivery of a copy of the claim and the application for change of cause as of November 12, 2014, which is obviously the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the application, as of November 13, 2014.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is reasonable to accept the conjunctive claim added in the trial. The judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed, and it is ordered to order the payment of the above amount upon the conjunctive claim added in the trial. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Southern Don (Presiding Judge)

1) From around 2002, the ○○dong store was operated as two stores of △△ Sports and △△ △△ exclusive store.

2) In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant, from time to time, lent KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, was to substitute the remainder of the lease deposit for KRW 20 million,” but the Plaintiff changed this part of the assertion in the first instance trial.