1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows, according to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim on the principal lawsuit changed from the trial court.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 8, 2002, the Plaintiff leased the instant store owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and on February 19, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon stated in the purport of the claim that “the period of the lease on a deposit basis shall be KRW 40 million from February 18, 2002 to February 18, 2004.” B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the term from February 18, 2004 to “from February 18, 2004 to February 18, 2006,” respectively, to “the period of the lease on a deposit basis as stated in the purport of the lease on a deposit basis,” and the Plaintiff changed the term from “from February 18, 2004 to February 18, 2006.”

C. On February 27, 2006, the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant stating that the lease deposit for the instant store is KRW 52 million, that for the rent is KRW 1 million per month (payment date: KRW 17,000,000 per month), and that “from February 19, 2006 to February 18, 2008.” D. On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement between the Defendant-friendly C and the Defendant-friendly C with regard to the instant store, with the term “from February 19, 2008 to February 18, 201” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

E. On December 29, 2010, C sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the lease agreement would be terminated upon the expiration of the period of February 17, 2011, and the Plaintiff would have returned the lease deposit until February 17, 2011.

F. From March 20, 200 to October 31, 2012, the Defendant operated a computer driving institute under the trade name “G Computer driving school” at the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is primarily asserted by the Plaintiff. On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with C, who is not the Defendant, and C has the right to refund the deposit money for the instant store (hereinafter “instant deposit”).