1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C, on December 5, 2008, leased 30 square meters from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) among the off-ground businesses in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with a fixed term of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million, and the period of two years, and carried on the following automobile sales and painting business.

(The first contract was concluded on December 6, 2007). At the time, C paid KRW 20 million to C, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the mother of D representative director F (Defendant wife)’s account in G.

B. While the above lease continues, D demanded the increase of deposit, and on December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s deposit account.

Accordingly, a lease contract between the Plaintiff and D was concluded between KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 10 million, and one-year lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and D, and the object of the lease was increased from KRW 30 to 80.

C. After that termination, the above lease contract was terminated, and D returned KRW 30 million out of the deposit. On November 1, 2012, KRW 20 million was remitted from the F’s account to C’s account. On November 26, 2012, KRW 10 million was remitted from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s father’s account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, part of the witness of the trial court C, the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On December 2010, the Plaintiff asserts that when the Defendant requested to increase the deposit amount of KRW 20 million at the time of the lease agreement, the Defendant would be liable for the return of the deposit by demanding the Defendant to transfer the deposit amount to the account designated by the Defendant. This asserts that the Defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, and that the Defendant has jointly and severally assumed the obligation to

However, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness C in the trial corresponding thereto is difficult (C testified that the reason why the deposit was remitted to the Defendant’s personal account in the first instance trial was well-founded) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. The plaintiff's assertion of return agreement 1 is the actual representative of D and the lease contract is concluded with the plaintiff.