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. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for friendship and human resources services (hereinafter “instant contract”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the Plaintiff, in return for payment of deposit of KRW 15 million and KRW 300,000,000 per month, to operate the cer that provides services, such as bath and resistance, etc., from the raina located underground in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD Building (hereinafter “instant contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.5 million in total as the down payment and intermediate payment, and KRW 80,000,000 in total to the Defendant, for which C’s representative director was the Defendant.

B. However, the Plaintiff, C, and the Defendant agreed on February 15, 2014 and agreed on February 15, 2014 and agreed on the said contract to the Plaintiff, as C did not obtain registration, authorization, and permission for the instant facilities.

3. Until March 31, 31, C agreed to return the above KRW 7.5 million, and the defendant agreed to return the above KRW 800,000.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the above agreement made on February 15, 2014, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to return KRW 7.5 million to the Plaintiff, or agreed on behalf of the Plaintiff, and did not indicate C as the principal. The Plaintiff did not know that the Defendant was the representative, and the Defendant also bears the obligation to return KRW 7.5 million pursuant to the proviso of Article 48 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to return the amount of KRW 8.3 million ( KRW 7.5 million) to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant appears to have to return KRW 80,000 to the Plaintiff according to the agreement dated February 15, 2014.

However, in relation to whether the Defendant should return the KRW 7.5 million, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return KRW 7.5 million to the Plaintiff at the time of the above agreement, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.