1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5:

With respect to the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel 501 (hereinafter “instant officetel”), the Plaintiff transferred KRW 1,000,000 to the Defendant’s name account (Korea Bank E) at the request of the existing lessee, who was an existing lessee, who was appointed as a C’s agent, of KRW 1,00,000 on January 17, 2015.

B. However, on January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff sought the return of the above money and did not reach the preparation of the lease agreement, even if the Plaintiff decided not to conclude the instant officetel lease agreement with the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff, under the circumstance that the terms and conditions of the instant officetel cannot be deemed to have been concluded due to the failure to determine the terms and conditions of the contract, remitted KRW 1 million to the Defendant under the pretext of the provisional contract, and eventually, the contract was not concluded. As such, the Defendant asserts that the said amount was not acquired without any legal cause, and thus, the Defendant claimed against the Defendant the above KRW 1 million and its delay damages.

(2) As to this, the Defendant should be deemed to have concluded a lease contract or its provisional contract between the Plaintiff and C with respect to the instant officetel at the time when the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1 million to the Defendant. As long as the contract or its provisional contract was rescinded due to a cause attributable to the Plaintiff’s simple change, the above amount should be deemed as the cancellation amount pursuant to Articles 567 and 565(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant did not have the obligation to return the above KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) Ultimately, the issue of this case is premised on whether the main contract for the lease of the instant officetel was established, and on the premise that the provisional contract amount of KRW 1 million already issued shall be returned if this contract was not established.