1.The following amounts, among the parts concerning the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance, exceed the amount ordered to be paid:

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the case where "the plaintiff has to have to have to have "the plaintiff," under Section 14 of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the filing of a claim for the settlement of deposit and premium, the Defendant appears to have received only the remainder after deducting the amount of KRW 10 million borrowed by the Plaintiff from the lessorF from the Plaintiff out of the total deposit amount of KRW 30 million,00,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff received by disposing of the instant brokerage office pursuant to the instant settlement agreement, barring any special circumstances.

Of the aggregate of KRW 50 million, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 2.5 million equivalent to KRW 1/2 of KRW 45 million which the Plaintiff seeks.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant shall deduct and settle each of the above 22.5 million won from the plaintiff's deposit account, and 91,010 won transferred from the business operator's deposit account to the plaintiff's vehicle insurance premium in P, and 3.1 million won from the plaintiff's deposit account in accordance with paragraph (2) of this case, since the defendant's share of 13.1 million won from the plaintiff's deposit account shall be returned to the plaintiff, the above 2.5 million won should be deducted from the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, ① the above deposit amount of KRW 20 million was deposited in the business account book, and used as the operating fund of the instant brokerage office after the Plaintiff deposited in the business account book, and the Defendant demanded the return thereof at the time of the instant settlement agreement, or did not raise any objection (it is argued that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff deposit in the trial). ② According to the evidence No. 4, the instant settlement agreement was concluded on June 2, 2016.