1. The Defendant’s KRW 40 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 31, 2013 to March 9, 2017.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact that the Defendant received KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff on March 31, 2010 and returned KRW 60,000 among them on July 30, 2013 is no dispute between the parties.

B. On January 1, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that, upon the Defendant’s request on January 1, 201, the Plaintiff agreed to substitute KRW 30 million for additional transaction deposit. However, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are integrated, it is insufficient to recognize that there was such an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit without any need to further examine the remainder. 2) Further, on January 17, 201, the Plaintiff further paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant as additional transaction deposit or advance payment, but did not be settled by goods, etc.

Therefore, the fact that the defendant received KRW 25 million from the plaintiff on January 17, 201 is not disputed between the parties, but further, it is insufficient to accept the fact that the above money was paid in the name of the additional transaction deposit, or that the plaintiff paid the above money to the defendant as advance payment, but did not receive the goods corresponding thereto.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as to the above unclaimed transaction deposit amounting to KRW 40 million ( KRW 100 million - 60 million) and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from July 31, 2013 to March 9, 2017, which is the date of this decision, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.