1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the addition of "additional Parts" between the fourth and third instances of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is cited by the main text

In addition, since the defendant agreed to own the leased deposit as owned by the defendant, it is argued that there is no obligation to return the money equivalent to the ratio of the plaintiff's share among the leased deposit. Thus, according to the evidence No. 7 (No. 12) of this case, it can be acknowledged that the special agreement states that "the lessee shall pay to the defendant at the time of the return of the deposit." However, it appears that the method of returning the deposit that the lessor would return the deposit to the defendant among the two co-Lessees is determined by the method of returning the deposit that the lessor would return the deposit to the defendant among the above co-Lessees. On the contrary,

It is insufficient to recognize that the original defendant agreed not to take the property of the association that should or settle the lease deposit.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining parts shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance that makes the conclusion is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.