The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court

2. The following shall be added to a part of the judgment of the court of first instance which is written or added at least 14 pages:

“. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against E on December 12, 2018 against the Defendant seeking the return of the deposit for the instant contract, and in the appellate court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2020Na20120) of the said lawsuit, “E shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 18 million up to May 20, 2020 (the amount obtained by deducting the unpaid monthly rent and other expenses, etc. from the contract deposit of this case to September 14, 2018 from the delivery of the instant building from the contract deposit of KRW 30 million), and if the said payment is not made by the said payment date, it shall be subject to compulsory conciliation (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation”).

1)The second 15th 15th 15th 15th 2th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2

The Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the deposit of KRW 18 million and delay damages therefor, which he received from E through the instant compulsory adjustment.” The Defendant is also obliged to pay the Plaintiff the deposit of KRW 18 million.

The following shall be added to "a point that has not been confirmed" in the third 18th 18th tier judgment:

(4) In the case of the building of this case filed against the plaintiff and the defendant, "No.S.A.," the judgment of the court below that the defendant still bears the duty of delivery as the lessee of the building of this case on the ground that Eul prepared a contract under the premise that the plaintiff would receive the certificate of return of deposit for lease from the defendant, and that Eul did not receive the above certificate, and that the plaintiff still bears the duty of delivery as the lessee of the building of this case (Seoul East Eastern District Court July 13, 2018).