1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the above revoked part shall be revoked.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a principal suit against the Defendant, C, and D (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”), and the Defendant, as a counterclaim, filed a claim for the conclusion of the lease agreement, the obligation to protect the opportunity to recover the premium (50 million won), the claim for the return of the lease deposit (20 million won), the claim for the return of the rent (130,008,000 won), and the claim for damages (180,000 won) due to the breach of the obligation to protect the opportunity to recover the premium (130,000 won), and the claim for the return of rent (13,00,000 won) and the claim for the return of rent (13,08,000 won).

The court of first instance rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the conclusion of a lease agreement against the Defendant, etc. among the Plaintiff’s principal claim, and dismissed all of the claims against C and D among the remainder of the principal claim, claims against the Defendant for damages (the part of KRW 50 million out of the principal claim, and KRW 180 million out of the conjunctive claim), and claims for the return of rent due to breach of the obligation to protect the opportunity to recover premiums against the Defendant, and partly accepted the claim for the return of lease deposit against the Defendant, and accepted the Defendant’s counterclaim in its entirety.

In this regard, the plaintiff filed an appeal against part of the claim for damages and counter-claim due to a violation of the duty to protect the opportunity to recover premiums among the part against the principal lawsuit, and withdrawn the appeal on August 9, 2018, and the defendant appealed against the defendant among the principal lawsuit.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication shall be limited to the part against the defendant among the principal claim.

2. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: “Defendant C” and “Defendant D” are the same as the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the first instance except where “C” and “Defendant D” are applied to “D”, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the claim for refund of deposit against the defendant among the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement on January 1, 2017.