1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional determination" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the actual lessee agreed not to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, which is indicated as the lessee of the instant case, is a false representation in the agreement, and the Plaintiff is a third party in good faith, and thus, the agreement cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant must return the lease deposit to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 108 of the Civil Act, a false declaration of intent made in collusion with the other party cannot be asserted against a third party acting in good faith. The third party means a person other than the party to the false indication and the general successor, who has an interest in a new legal cause based on the legal relationship formed externally by the false indication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1403, May 25, 1982). In the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that an agreement made between the defendant and the actual lessee was based on the false indication that there was no agreement made between the defendant and the actual lessee, and thus, the first party's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

In this case, it was based on the false indication that there was an agreement between the defendant and the actual lessee.

Even if the plaintiff trusted the lease contract based on the false conspiracy, and based on this, it does not have a new legal interest with the defendant as a lessee of the building of this case, but only invested the money in the name of the lease deposit with the non-party company as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed as a third party of the false conspiracy.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.