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. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff joined the 12 unit of the successful bid price (22 million won, 21 unit of Gu, and 1 million won per Gu unit of Gu) organized by the Defendant on April 15, 2016; (b) the Defendant paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 11 million from April 22, 2016 to February 15, 2017; (c) the Defendant refused to pay the deposit; (d) suspended the payment of the deposit from March 2017 to March 2017; and (e) from May 2, 2017 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff demanded the repayment of KRW 13 million plus interest of KRW 10 million. However, the Defendant did not comply with this.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above deposit amount of KRW 11 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant organized the number of KRW 22,00,000,000 for the fraternity on April 15, 2016, KRW 21 for the 21st unit, and KRW 1 million for the 1st unit. However, C, who is the Plaintiff’s seat, was admitted to the 2nd unit of the above number fraternity (No. 5 and 12) and the Plaintiff transferred the fraternity to the Defendant on behalf of C, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff joined the said fraternity.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff was admitted to the limit organized by the Defendant on April 15, 2016.

B. If the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), part of testimony and whole pleadings by witnesses of the trial party C is added, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is a successful bidder on April 15, 2016, and the number limit of KRW 22,00,000 per unit, KRW 21,000,000 per unit, and KRW 1,000,000 per unit. However, in principle, the successful bidder is a successful bidder, but in principle, the successful bidder is paid the highest interest for each ordinary time limit. However, in the case of a limit organized on April 15, 2016, it is reasonable to deem that the amount was paid according to the pre-determined sequence.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fraternity”), the Plaintiff organized to the Defendant on April 22, 2016, KRW 200,000,000 for the Defendant on April 25, 2016, KRW 44 million on April 25, 2016, KRW 200,000 on May 17, 2016, KRW 100,000 on October 17, 2016, and KRW 200,000 on October 17, 2016.