1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C completed business registration under the name of the mother Defendant’s name, and opened a frequency collection (hereinafter “instant frequency collection”) with the trade name “D frequency collection,” and operated the instant frequency collection with F in a de facto marital relationship by using a national bank E account (hereinafter “instant account”) with the nominal owner of “B (D frequency)”.

B. While the Plaintiff was engaged in trading of F and gift certificates from March 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the instant account of KRW 10 million on November 22, 2016, KRW 30 million on November 30, 2016, and KRW 13 million on November 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant purchase price”). However, the Plaintiff received only the gift certificates of KRW 6.5 million from F on December 10, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant provided gift certificates to the Plaintiff via Gain-in F, and supplied only the gift certificates worth KRW 6.5 million to the Plaintiff even if the purchase price was paid. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the remainder of KRW 6.5 million and the delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant is not only the Plaintiff but also the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not know that F had engaged in gift certificates transactions with the Plaintiff using the instant account, and there was no fact that F was involved in the transaction between the two parties. Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the money claimed by the Plaintiff

3. In light of the following circumstances, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the sales price of this case to the account of this case, as seen earlier, but in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 1 through 3 (including each serial number in the case of serial numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the above remittance alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, either directly or by proxy, made gift certificates transactions with the Plaintiff or F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's transaction of the gift certificates of this case.