1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a contract to promote joint projects for the manufacture and sale of metal arms (hereinafter “instant contract”). On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff paid down payment of KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

B. However, the above joint project did not run even after the lapse of several months.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought the return of the down payment to the Defendant on June 2014, and received the return of KRW 1.9 million on August 8, 2014.

C. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant to the effect that the instant contract was terminated and the remainder of the down payment was claimed, and the content-certified mail was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant upon introduction, and paid the down payment under the said contract. The Defendant did not proceed with the said joint project at all until the lapse of several months, and continued to avoid the contact of the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff terminated the above contract and claimed the return of the down payment to the defendant, but the defendant returned only KRW 1.9 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the remainder of 8.1 million won to the plaintiff.

B. Although the name of the Defendant’s assertion is the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the actual parties to the contract are the Plaintiff and B, and the Defendant only lent the name upon the request of the Plaintiff and B.

In addition, the failure of B to smoothly carry out the joint business of the above contract is due to the fact that B did not fully pay the down payment of KRW 75 million to be paid by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s termination of the contract cannot be deemed a lawful termination.

Even if the contract deposit is to be returned to the Defendant

Even if the defendant returns 70% of the down payment pursuant to the provisions on termination of the above contract, the defendant shall return it.

3...