1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay 26,890,000 won to the plaintiff and its related costs on September 2017.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Revision] The following is added to the 10th 10th 1st 10th 10th 1st 4th 1st 1st 2th 2th 2th

From January 2018, “G has performed a new resort construction as a whole for commercial buildings, and the construction has been completed on or around April 2018, and the construction has been completed on or around April 4, 2018.” The “each of the descriptions in Category 1 through 7, 12, and 13 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)” in the first instance judgment shall be corrected to “each of the descriptions and images of Category 1 through 7, 12, and 13 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the lease deposit with the instant store: (a) invested approximately KRW 250 million in the instant store by installing a business facility for the operation of a restaurant; and (b) made a large franchise enterprise, such as the Defendant, operate a restaurant at the said store; and (c) paid a certain fee to the Plaintiff; and (d) the instant agreement constitutes a type of non-use loan agreement mixed with a loan agreement for consumption and an agreement for the distribution of business profits. In other words, with respect to the amount equivalent to the lease deposit that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant, the agreement on the refund of principal was concluded; and (e) the Defendant shall return the lease deposit received from G after the termination of the lease agreement to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, since the instant agreement was concluded on the premise that the said agreement remains in existence due to the termination of the lease agreement between the Defendant and G, the Defendant is also obligated to return the lease deposit received from G to the Plaintiff.