1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the part of the "decision on the claim for delivery" in part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to the plaintiff's argument; and (b) the part of the "decision on the claim for delivery" in part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be used as follows; and (c) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be referred to as "3,925,360 won" in part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "3,925,360

2. In relation to the claim for the return of the premium for the additional determination portion, the plaintiff argued to the effect that it is unreasonable because the plaintiff, using the facility in the apartment in the apartment in this case, leases the apartment in this case to a third party as it is to receive the premium again. However, according to the premium contract in this case, the premium paid by the defendant from the plaintiff is not only the cost of the facility for the operation of the child care center, but also the profit that the defendant acquired by the plaintiff (in the case of the reduction of the number of the child care center permitted, the number of the students attending the existing child care center was an important factor in the determination of the premium, and the national subsidy that the plaintiff received in the course of operating the child care center was also an important factor in the determination of the premium. In accordance with the premium contract in this case, since the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the facility, house, and equipment in the apartment in this case, it cannot be deemed that the ownership is over the defendant's ownership, even if the lease contract in this case was terminated, it cannot be viewed that the defendant did not recover the premium in this case.