The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is "Article 3-3 of the judgment of the first instance."

(c)bed;

In addition to the dismissal of the part of the "paragraph 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 8, No. 7, and No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance) as follows, the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted

2. Parts of dried goods;

C. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff received KRW 5,500,000 from the Defendant as the down payment under the instant contract is acknowledged as above (the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 5,00,00 to the account under the name of G on August 4, 2016 is part of the said down payment), and the Plaintiff claimed the amount calculated by deducting the down payment that was paid from the Defendant as the temporary materials rent that was paid by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on the premise that the down payment should be additionally deducted is without merit.

Furthermore, according to each description or image of evidence Nos. 7 through 9, D, on October 20, 2016, notified the Defendant of the “H” account number managed by F, who is the Plaintiff’s partner, and transferred KRW 5,500,000 to the above account on the same day by E (hereinafter “E”), and the fact that the tax invoice equivalent to the above amount was issued by H is recognized.

However, in light of the following: (a) it is difficult to understand the relationship with the Plaintiff; (b) there is no clear evidence to ascertain whether the money remitted to the account was paid for the rent under the instant temporary re-contract; and (c) it is difficult to understand the relationship between E and the Defendant; and (d) it is difficult to understand that “H” issued a tax invoice in the future; and (e) it cannot be ruled out that there was a separate transaction relationship between two enterprises.