The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that 300 million won was entrusted to the Defendant for the appointment of an attorney-at-law for a criminal case against husband C, who was detained in a criminal case related to the market price manipulation, and the Defendant delivered 165 million won among this fact to D attorney-at-law by law firm H and kept the remainder 135 million won.

Since then, the plaintiff and C requested the cancellation of appointment of D lawyer and the return of fees, and on March 20, 2019, the plaintiff, C, the defendant, and D lawyer returned KRW 165 million to the mother.

On March 21, 2019, the following day after the Defendant decided to return the above KRW 135 million to the Plaintiff at this place, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 135 million and delay damages.

B. The parties to the instant agreement asserted by the Defendant are not the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but C and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and thus, the right to claim the return of the instant agreed amount is not C but C, and the duty to return is E.

Even if the parties to the instant agreement are the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant repaid the instant contract through F.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Gap evidence Nos. 12, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 8 (including paper numbers), the defendant received 300 million won financed by the plaintiff as the attorney fee of the plaintiff, and directly carried out all related business affairs. C is under the custody of the Seoul Southern Southern Detention House at the time of such process, and it seems that it was difficult for the plaintiff to participate properly in this process. Although the plaintiff was present at the time of returning 165 million won, E's officers or employees did not have any records or circumstances that the 135 million won was deposited, transferred, or transferred to E's account, and there was no relevant accounting data, and the defendant did not have any relevant accounting data.