The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (former Co., Ltd.) is a wholesaler that supplies imported alcoholic beverages, and the Defendant Company is a corporation that operates the marriage wedding hall called E in Yanan City, and the Defendant C works as the managing director of the Defendant Company, while serving as a director of the Defendant Company on April 2, 2015.

B. On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a transaction agreement on the supply of alcoholic beverages with the Defendant Company to deliver alcoholic beverages to E, and agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Defendant Company as a security deposit to secure the Plaintiff’s performance of the duty of supply of alcoholic beverages (hereinafter “instant transaction agreement”).

On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff delivered 30 million won in cash to the Defendant C, who was in office as the managing director of the Defendant Company.

(d)

On January 30, 2019, the delivery transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company terminated, and the Defendant Company returned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence No. 2 (including number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Claim against the Defendant as the main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the deposit stipulated in the instant transaction agreement was KRW 20 million, but at the request of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the deposit in KRW 30 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, and agreed to pay KRW 30 million to the Defendant Company.

However, since the defendant company returns only KRW 20 million after the transaction with the plaintiff was completed, the defendant company is obligated to return the remaining deposit amount of KRW 10 million.

2) The fact that Defendant C, an employee of the Defendant Company, received KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on the day following the instant contract, as seen earlier, does not dispute the Defendant Company that the said KRW 20 million is a deposit for the instant contract.