1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from April 6, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. The judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant would have the Plaintiff operate the restaurant at the apartment construction site reconstructed in Daegu City District, and that the Defendant wired KRW 55 million to the deposit passbook in the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant would allow D, etc. to operate the restaurant, and D, etc. was unable to operate the restaurant due to the lack of intent and ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant, and the fact that D, etc. returned KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on August 30, 2014 that the Plaintiff returned KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on August 30, 2014 is recognized by each entry in the evidence No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 25 million won (55 million won - 30 million won) as unjust enrichment or damages, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 6, 2015 to the day of complete payment, since the defendant's failure to perform his/her duty under the agreement with the plaintiff was terminated, or the defendant's obligation was impossible to perform.

2. The judgment of the defendant on the defendant's assertion is based on the 55 million won received from the plaintiff that the down payment or honorarium of the restaurant was KRW 3 million, and thus the defendant's return amount was 52 million. The defendant's return amount was 30 million, and the 30 million won has already been paid, and thus the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 22 million.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case in this case is groundless since D seizes the amount of KRW 22 million deposited to the defendant and securing the claim.

Although the Defendant received 52 million won in return for the right to operate the restaurant from the Plaintiff and received the remainder as down payment or honorarium, if the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant became nonperformance or impossible, the Defendant did not have a right to hold the down payment or honorarium, and the Defendant did not have any right to hold it.