1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion added or used in addition to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be 5 in the third five pages of the judgment, stating that “the Plaintiff was notified of the fact by content-certified mail” to the effect that “the Plaintiff was notified of the fact by service of a duplicate of the briefs dated April 12, 2019.”

In the third 18th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 206, "the fact that the fact was notified to the plaintiff by content-certified mail."

The following shall be added to the fourth 6th 6th tier of the first instance judgment:

“C. The Defendant asserts that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to return a lease deposit with respect to the remainder of the main lawsuit. However, the Defendant, as a pledgee of the claim to return a lease deposit, may directly claim the claim to return a lease deposit to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 353(1) of the Civil Act. For this reason, the Plaintiff’s legal status was caused, and it is necessary to immediately be determined by the confirmation judgment in order to remove it, and it is the most effective and appropriate means. Therefore, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to return a lease deposit. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit. The following

4. Preliminary determination as to the conjunctive claim, the Plaintiff: (a) the Defendant’s employee, a commercial employee, directly paid the lease deposit to the lessee; and (b) the Defendant provided that “the Defendant may return the deposit directly to the lessee upon the Defendant’s request” under the proviso of paragraph (3) of the Notice of Pledge; (c) however, the Plaintiff may not pay the deposit to the lessee.