1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose main purpose is to manufacture and process leather products, sell, export and import business, etc., and the Defendants are those engaged in wholesale and retail business in the same trade name as “E”, respectively, and at the same place of business.

B. The Plaintiff, through D on November 28, 2012, was supplied with the Defendant’s risk, and was supplied with the Defendant’s account from May 2014 to May 2014.

C. In order to be supplied with the whole volume of the volume produced by the Defendants from D while being supplied with friendly by the Defendants, the Plaintiff heard the horses that the Defendants should pay KRW 100 million as the deposit amount, and remitted the total amount of KRW 100 million to Defendant B’s account on January 7, 2014 and KRW 50 million on January 15, 2014.

On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was supplied with the Defendants with the final voucher, and was not supplied with it. The Plaintiff paid the Defendants all the amount of the voucher supplied by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, at the request of the Defendants, paid KRW 100 million to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay goods to the Defendants at present or in the future. Finally, the payment of the price for the transaction on May 29, 2014 was terminated with the Defendants, and there was no longer any amount yet to be paid, and the Defendants are obliged to return the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants asserted as the Defendants were asked to receive the full amount of the letter of credit produced by the Defendants from D while introducing D from F, a trucking business operator, and doing so. The Defendants were demanded to receive the delivery of the letter of credit produced by the Defendants.

Accordingly, the Defendants are against D.