1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim.

1. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the Defendant, and partly accepted the Defendant’s claim for damages against the Plaintiff.

In this regard, only the plaintiff appealed against the part against the plaintiff's counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant appealed against the plaintiff's counterclaim in the appellate court. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the counterclaim and the part concerning the counterclaim.

2. Basic facts

A. In the case of Ansan-si, E 2,661 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) is owned by the Defendant and the Defendant’s mother D on August 14, 2006, each one half of the shares after purchasing them on August 14, 2006.

B. On July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 23,000,000, and the period from July 26, 2010 to July 25, 2012 with respect to the instant housing site with respect to the housing of KRW 330 square meters and the cement block block structure, 82.6 square meters (unauthorized housing; hereinafter “instant housing”).

C. On July 21, 2010, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a deposit of KRW 23,000,000 for the instant lease agreement, and received the instant housing.

On November 1, 2013, when the instant lease agreement was renewed and continued, there was a loss that caused a fire on the instant house (hereinafter “the instant first fire”) and half of the said house was destroyed.

E. After that, around 10:30 on February 14, 2014, a fire again occurred in the instant house (hereinafter “the instant secondary fire”) and the entire housing was destroyed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 10, Eul Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The judgment on the principal lawsuit was examined, and the contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 23,000,000 to the Defendant, and the first and second fires of this case.