beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence No. 1’s purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) as a whole, the plaintiff leased and operated the Deputy Director of the Sejong District Court located in Cheongju-si, Seoul (hereinafter “the Deputy Director of the Jeju District Court”) through the defendant’s husband, and the defendant’s Nonghyup Bank account (Account Number: G) known to D as the name of lease deposit, etc. as to the Deputy Director of the Jeju District Court of this case on January 22, 2015, with the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 on January 23, 2015, and KRW 1,000,000,000 on January 26, 2015, 200, KRW 6,000,000,000 on January 28, 2015, KRW 005,050,050.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) according to the Plaintiff’s proposal, the Plaintiff is to rent and operate the Plaintiff’s Vice General for one year from January 22, 2015 to January 21, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); (b) KRW 15,000,000 as the lease deposit; and (c) KRW 20,50,000 as the sum of KRW 5,50,000 as the expenses necessary for the operation of the Vice General (hereinafter “the instant money”); and (d) according to the details of the bank transaction (Evidence 1, 2050,000 as the sum of the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account (Evidence 2, 200,000,000).
Although Eul paid the plaintiff's residence, it is not reasonable to directly operate the Deputy Director General of the case from the plaintiff's residence to the Deputy Director General of the case, and he requested D to terminate the lease contract of this case. Since then D and D have a dispute over whether the plaintiff directly operates the Deputy Director General of the case.
Since the lease contract of this case was terminated on January 21, 2016, D is obligated to return the amount to the Plaintiff. Since D is a party to the lease contract of this case, D is due to the termination of the lease contract of this case to the third Deputy Director.