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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and C (name H on August 26, 2015; hereinafter “H”) reported the business of public bath business pursuant to the Public Health Control Act on the F bath in E (hereinafter “instant bath”) during Ansan-si on January 17, 2014, and registered the instant bath as a joint proprietor of the instant bath on the same day.

B. On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs: (a) during the contract period from April 8, 2014 to April 8, 2016; (b) 56 million won in operating deposit; and (c) the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the business of the Plaintiff

The term “the instant operational contract” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant operational contract”) was drawn up with the content to be set up.

The operation contract of this case includes the defendant and H as the operator of the bath of this case, who is the party to the contract, and G as his agent.

C. Around that time, the Defendant, H, and G prepared a receipt on April 8, 2014 stating that “the amount of KRW 56 million for the instant bath service was regularly collected” in the name of the Defendant, H, and G.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) paid KRW 56 million to the Defendant, etc. in accordance with the instant operational contract prepared between G and that on behalf of the Defendant, etc., and the instant bath was closed on or around February 2015. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 56 million to the Plaintiffs according to the instant operational contract. 2) Even if the Defendant, etc. did not grant the right of representation regarding the preparation of the instant operational contract, even if the Defendant, etc. did not grant the right of representation to G, the Defendant, a joint business proprietor of the instant bath, is liable to the nominal lender for the instant operational contract concluded with the Defendant under the name of the Defendant, a substantial business owner, pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the above operating deposit amount of KRW 56 million to the plaintiffs.

(b).