1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant who had worked as the head of the office at the same time when he/she went in accordance with the trade name “D” in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, and thereafter the original Defendant became a string.

B. On February 2013, the Defendant opened the business name “F” (hereinafter “the instant case”) in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon.

During the period from January 30, 2013 to February 5, 2013, the Plaintiff spent KRW 35 million for the expenses incurred in opening the store by directly remitting to the transferor and the lessor of the instant case or by paying to the Defendant.

C. Around October 2014, the Defendant disposed of the instant bar.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 6, G's testimony by the first instance court witness G, and whole purport of oral argument

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s obligation to return the investment deposit

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant alleged that the plaintiff made an agreement on guaranteeing the principal of investment with the plaintiff and received an investment of KRW 35 million from the plaintiff, and thus, he/she shall return the principal of investment to the plaintiff KRW 35 million.

The plaintiff claims 20,884,855 won (the amount obtained by deducting 35,53,465 won distributed from 56,418,320 won of the purport of the claim) to the defendant as part of the amount under the agreement to guarantee the principal of investment.

However, even if it does not do so, the deposit and premium should be reverted to the Plaintiff, which are residual property after the closure of the instant case, and the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff the deposit amounting to KRW 10 million and the premium amounting to KRW 20 million.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Defendant is a donation that was made to the Defendant, which had been a year between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time, and there was no agreement between the Defendant and the original

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s disbursement of KRW 35 million out of the opening capital of the instant case was recognized.

Although the plaintiff asserts the above money as investment, there is no dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6.