1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Defendant, setting forth all matters necessary for the lease of the fifth or seventh floor of the building C in Jung-gu, Seoul. On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a new memorandum of understanding with some changes in the amount of deposit money, the salesroom occupants’ target floor, etc.

(hereinafter “instant MOU”). Under the instant MOU, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200,000,000 to the account in the name of Law Firm D, for which the Defendant’s temporary administrator was a representative attorney at the time.

At the time of the conclusion of the letter of understanding of this case, the defendant, within three months, agreed to receive at least 95% of the lease contract and attached documents from the sectional owners of each floor, and provided them to the plaintiff. If the collection rate of the lease contract and attached documents is not achieved 95% within three months from the commencement date of the written lease contract, the plaintiff may request the defendant to return the deposit to the defendant. In such case, the defendant decided to return the full amount of the deposit within

The Defendant did not comply with the agreement that was set at the time of the conclusion of the instant memorandum of Understanding, namely, from the sectional owners of each floor at least 95% of the lease agreement and attached documents.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the deposit on June 5, 2018, but the Defendant did not refund the deposit up to the present day. The Defendant is obligated to refund the deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

2. On the premise that the Plaintiff entered into the instant memorandum of Understanding with the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought a return of KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant under the instant memorandum of Understanding.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into the instant memorandum of Understanding with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1.