1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 23, 2014 to September 18, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff (1) The Defendant acquired the right of implementation and construction of G apartment site and construction (hereinafter “instant implementation and construction right”) located in F at the time of Jinhae from the representative director E by C, and the Defendant acquired the right of acquisition from C as to the instant implementation and construction right contract. The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff in order to acquire the instant enforcement and construction right.

(2) On September 2, 2003, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100 million into the Defendant’s account, the Defendant’s wife, and prepared a cash custody certificate for KRW 100 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”).

(3) Since then, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C on the enforcement of the instant case and the execution right, but the fact was that C did not hold the enforcement of the instant case and the execution right. Thus, the Plaintiff failed to acquire the enforcement of the instant case and the execution right.

(4) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100 million as stated in the cash custody certificate of this case and damages for delay from September 2, 2003.

B. Defendant (1) stated in the cash custody certificate of this case that “The implementation of the Jinhae F, the execution contract of the execution right, and the cash custody certificate of the demonstration as invalid.” Since the Plaintiff and C entered into a contract on the enforcement of the instant case and the execution right, the cash custody certificate of this case is invalid.

(2) In addition, while introducing the instant enforcement and execution right contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from part of the money invested by the Defendant in C as compensation, and thus, KRW 100 million claim based on the cash custody certificate of this case constitutes commercial claims, and the statute of limitations for commercial claims expired upon completion of the statute of limitations for commercial claims.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s interpretation of the proviso of the cash custody certificate of this case and the validity of the cash custody certificate of this case, and the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments, can be acknowledged.