1. Of the counterclaim part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) that orders the following payment.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the rent and delay damages due to the principal lawsuit. The Defendant filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment of the lease deposit and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent received by the Plaintiff due to a counterclaim. The first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit, and dismissed the Defendant’s claim for counterclaim in full.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed the part against the principal lawsuit and the part against the counterclaim, but the court withdrawn the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent from the counterclaim and added the claim for damages.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is the part against the defendant among the part against the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part against the defendant, which is the claim for the refund of deposit for lease and the additional claim for damages in this court.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the claim in this case is as follows, except for the deletion of the defendant's assertion in the column of "2. Party's assertion" among the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the statement in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance

4. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. 1) The Plaintiff received KRW 25,00,000 from the Defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and issued and delivered a written statement that he/she would be liable to the Defendant on May 9, 2018. The Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Defendant.

B) Although the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the amount of deposit KRW 25,00,000 under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff did not receive the said deposit from the Defendant. 2) The instant case was examined.