보증금반환
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit by combining the claim for refund of lease deposit and the claim for damages, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the delivery of a building. The Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim were partly accepted.
Accordingly, the defendant only appealed against the claim for damages during the main claim, and the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the above claim for damages among the main claim.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “Article 10-3” of the first instance judgment as “Article 10-4,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following judgments with respect to the assertion added by the court of first instance. Thus, it is to be cited as it is in accordance
3. Matters to be judged additionally;
A. Whether the premium contract between the Plaintiff and E is null and void because it constitutes a false conspiracy or an anti-social legal act) The Defendant alleged that the premium contract of this case was concluded by a false conspiracy between the Plaintiff and E. However, the circumstances are as follows, which are acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of pleadings as a result of Gap's written or visual recording of evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 10 (including a serial number), testimony of witness E of the first instance court, appraisal commission of appraiser F of the first instance court, and the following circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff used the store of this case, which was used as a Saturday store, as a children's uniform store after taking about KRW 30 million into account expenses, and the premium of the clothing retail store of this case was formed within the scope of KRW 40 million from KRW 4,00,000 to KRW 7,000,000,0000,000 won under the premium contract of this case, and in light of this, the amount of the premium of this case is excluded from the Plaintiff's KRW 6.