The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

In the case of a juristic act attached to an associate officer, if it is reasonable to deem that the additional officer does not perform his/her obligation unless the facts indicated in the subordinate officer have occurred, it shall be deemed as a condition, and if it is reasonable to deem that the additional officer should perform his/her obligation even if the facts indicated have occurred or not, it shall be deemed as the time limit fixed to determine whether the existence of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24215 Decided August 19, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26128 Decided August 22, 2013, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on the adopted evidence, acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. Then, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the repayment of the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff on the condition that the instant commercial building was sold or leased normally by the Plaintiff’s intermediary and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the repayment of the instant lease deposit. However, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the repayment of the instant lease deposit on the ground that there was no assertion or proof by the Plaintiff

Examining the records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature or the interpretation of expression of intent.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.