The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the cancellation is dismissed.

1. Case summary and the presumed factual basis

A. The summary of the case is that the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 193,782,120, which is the limit of the claim to compensate for the remainder of the sale and purchase of the commercial building against the Defendant in subrogation of C, in order to preserve the compensation claim and the cost reimbursement claim (total amount of KRW 193,782,120,00) arising from the entrustment of affairs with respect to C, by asserting that the Plaintiff was entrusted with the operation of a healthcare in the name of the Plaintiff in the commercial building owned by C, and that he/she paid or borne the expenses in the course of handling the business affairs under the name of the Plaintiff, and that he/she sought payment of the compensation

The judgment of the first instance, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that some (4,260,000 won) of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of expenses against C exists, dismissed a lawsuit for subrogation of creditor, and accepted some (151,122,120 won) of the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim, dismissed the remainder of the claim, and filed an appeal against the part against which the Defendant lost.

Therefore, the object of this court's adjudication is limited to the part against the defendant.

전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1의 1, 2, 3, 갑2, 갑9, 10, 광주시청에 대한 사실조회와 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 원고와 C 사이의 헬스장 경영위탁계약 ㈎ C은 C이 실질적으로 소유하던 서울 마포구 D 외 10필지 지상 E 오피스텔 지하 301호, 302호, 303호(이하, ‘상가건물’이라고 한다)에서 헬스장을 운영하려고 하였으나 세금 체납 등으로 직접 헬스장을 운영하기 어렵게 되자 2010. 3. 무렵 친구인 원고에게 원고 명의로 상가건물에서 헬스장 운영을 하여 달라고 위탁하였다.

㈏ 원고는 2010. 3. 무렵 C과 사이에 헬스장 운영에 관한 경영을 위탁받으면서 헬스장 운영과 관련하여 원고가 지출하거나 부담하는 채무액을 C으로부터 보상받고, 매달 500만 원의...