1. The appeal filed by the Counterclaim Plaintiff is dismissed.

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

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

1. The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the claim of the counterclaim Defendant and dismissed the counterclaim claim of the counterclaim by the counterclaim Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Counterclaim appealed, and thereafter, on January 9, 2018, the appeal against the claim was withdrawn on the date of pleading.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the principal lawsuit between the counterclaim defendant and the counterclaim plaintiff was separated and finalized.

Thus, only the part of the counterclaim claim of the counterclaim is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2015, the Counterclaim Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Counterclaim Defendant with respect to “CMoel” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant telecom”) that is owned by the Counterclaim Defendant as follows (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Lease term: From February 23, 2015 to February 23, 2018, lease deposit: 300,000,000 won: Where the lease contract is terminated, the lessee shall restore the above real estate to its original state and return it to the lessor.

(a) Matters of the special agreement;

5. No expenses shall be charged to a lessor when investing in the facilities at the expense of a lessee, and the expenses shall be restored to the original state at the lessor's request;

7. To pay 10% of a deposit to a director expense group after tax deduction if the rental period of a lessee is not guaranteed in the course of selling and selling real estate within the prescribed period.

B. On February 23, 2015, the Lessee completed its business registration with respect to the instant cartel, which had been used prior to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, in the name of the Lessee.

C. On April 13, 2016, the counterclaim Defendant entered into a contract with the instant franchise (including the site; hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) owned by the counterclaim Defendant to exchange real estate owned D (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). The counterclaim Defendant and D, in the instant exchange contract, have the obligation to refund the lease deposit to the counterclaim Defendant.