1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s citing this judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the parties in the trial under paragraph (2) below to the judgment on the allegations of the parties in the trial, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiffs asserts that, at the time of the return of sales slips, the statutory interest rate of 6% per annum should be applied not to the commercial interest rate, since the Defendant’s obligation to return sales slips against the Plaintiffs was caused by commercial activities under Article 46 of the Commercial Act, and thus, the obligation to return sales slips should be applied

On the other hand, the "debt arising from commercial activity" to which the statutory interest rate in commercial activities under Article 54 of the Commercial Act applies includes not only the obligation directly arising from commercial activity but also the obligation identical thereto or the obligation recognized as modified thereof (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da41786 Decided September 10, 2009). However, while the defendant's deposit money to be returned to the plaintiffs is delayed in concluding a contract for consignment of the sale of tickets to be concluded in principle between the defendant and the passenger transport service provider, who is a terminal operator under the supervision and supervision of the management agency pursuant to the laws and regulations, such as the Passenger Transport Service Act, in relation to the passenger transport service, as a matter of course, between the defendant and the passenger transport service provider, who is a terminal operator under the supervision and supervision of the management agency pursuant to the laws and regulations such as the Passenger Transport Service Act, the plaintiffs continued to operate as previous ones. The defendant's unjust enrichment arising from the above money on behalf of the passenger

B. The plaintiffs, who are judged to claim damages equivalent to the interest on the expenses paid for provisional seizure of claims, were unilaterally forced to the plaintiffs, which were presented by the defendant, even though the settlement criteria for the amount agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the defendant were clearly clear.