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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On November 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred and acquired the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the name of “E” located in 72.36 square meters of the first floor of the D Building in Pyeongtaek-si; and (b) leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million from lessorF, G, and monthly rent of KRW 984,000, and operated the instant restaurant.

On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant restaurant’s KRW 72 million to the Defendants, and reverted the Plaintiff the right to refund the lease deposit of the instant restaurant between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. However, on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term, etc., the Defendants returned the lease deposit amount from the lessor and agreed to return it to the Plaintiff.

Despite the Defendants’ lease agreement with respect to the instant restaurant was terminated on or around May 2018, the Defendants did not refund the said lease deposit to the Plaintiff, contrary to the foregoing agreement, and accordingly, seek the return thereof.

B. The Defendant did not have agreed to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff as asserted by the Plaintiff.

When acquiring the instant restaurant from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid KRW 72 million to the Plaintiff by adding the premium and the lease deposit, and the said money was fully repaid, there is no reason to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to refund KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff at the time of termination of the lease agreement on the instant restaurant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s premium to the previous lessee is April 4.