1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 24, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased one medal (in shape) from the Defendant on February 24, 2005.

In addition, on March 2005, the Plaintiff purchased one fashion set from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff also requested the lush processing.

B. The Plaintiff did not pay each purchase price and the processing cost for the Meal and fashion sets. On November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff returned one of the above fashion sets to the Defendant on December 13, 2010, and paid KRW 650,000 to the Defendant on December 13, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion;

A. On March 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was in charge of the visa processing upon requesting the Defendant to process the visa.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 650,000 to the Defendant on December 13, 2010, and paid KRW 400,000 out of KRW 250,000 for Mebal purchase price and KRW 1,800 for Mebal processing costs.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant received 400,000 won from the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff for the processing costs of the powder, the Defendant is not obliged to return to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 4,000,000,000, and the delayed payment amount of KRW 4,400,00,000, which is the equivalent of the market price of the powder, and KRW 4,40,000, which is the equivalent of the price of the powder.

B. Although the plaintiff alleged by the defendant had requested the defendant to process dust on March 2005, the plaintiff did not take charge of the visa.

In addition, on December 13, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 650,00 to the Defendant on December 13, 2010, payment of KRW 250,000 for Meals purchase price for Meals and the price for goods not paid until that time, and for the Plaintiff’s assault against the Defendant around that time, payment of KRW 400,00 for Meals processing costs was not made.

3. Determination

A. First, according to the records of evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1 as to whether the Plaintiff left the Defendant’s stone to the Defendant, the Defendant was from the Plaintiff on December 18, 2008.